Satire is to be a looking glass By Prof Dr Sohail Ansari
Satire is people as they are; romanticism, people
as they would like to be; realism, people as they seem with their insides left
out. Dawn Powell
Satire cannot be the potent instrument of reformation if its beholder does not discover his own face.
Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu aliahi wa-sallam) said, When a person curses (La’nah; to ask that something
be deprived of Allah’s Mercy) somebody or something, the curse goes up to the
heaven and the gates of the heaven are closed. Then it comes down to the earth
and its gates are closed. Then it turns right and left, and if it does not find
an entrance to go anywhere, it returns to the person or thing that was cursed,
if he or it deserves to be cursed; otherwise, it returns to the person, who
uttered it.’ [Abu Dawood] Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu aliahi wa-sallam) also
warned, ‘Those who frequently resort to cursing would neither be accepted as
witnesses nor as intercessors on the Day of Resurrection’ [Saheeh Muslim]
Qualitative
and Quantitative Research Paradigms in Business Research: A Philosophical
Reflection
Stephen
Kwadwo Antwi1* Kasim Hamza2 1. School of Business, Tamale Polytechnic,
P.O. Box 3 ER, Tamale, Ghana 2. School
of Business, Tamale Polytechnic, P.O. Box 3 ER, Tamale, Ghana
*stevekwadant@yahoo.ca
Abstract:
This paper attempts to discuss quantitative
and qualitative research methodologies within the broad field of business research. In the light of looking for
possible similarities and differences
between the two approaches, the study gives an
overview of the historical development of both methods, the paradigms and
interpretative frameworks, discusses major advantages and limitations and look
at the new trend that combines both
quantitative and qualitative data in a single
research project in an effort to reconcile both methods. The main intention of this paper is not to
extend the current and long-lasting debate regarding qualitative versus quantitative research, rather to describe and reflect on the philosophical stance guiding the two research
methodologies from ontological,
epistemological and methodological perspectives.
The essence of this study is to enable professionals with little or no previous
experience of the various research methodologies and falling in to the
trap that one research is better than the other,
gain a basic understanding of qualitative and quantitative research. The study
concludes that, in addition to quantitative
and qualitative research, mixed research also offers an exciting mode of
conducting business research.
Keywords: Qualitative and Quantitative
Methodologies, Business Research, Paradigms
Introduction
The research
methodology that was traditionally used in social sciences for several decades was the quantitative
methodology, which originated in the natural
sciences such as biology, chemistry,
physics, geology, and was concerned with
investigating things which could be observed and measured in some way. Quantitative
research was the generally accepted research paradigm
in educational research until the early 1980s, when the “paradigm wars” between advocates of quantitative and qualitative
research reached a new peak (Guba, 1990; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). During
the 1980s, many quantitative and qualitative researchers argued that their approach was superior. Some of these
researchers were “purists,” in the sense
that they argued that the two approaches could not be used together because of differences
in the world views or philosophies associated with the two approaches. This article is not an exhaustive attempt to analyze
and synthesise all aspects of distinction between
qualitative and quantitative research methodology. However, it aims at
highlighting their differences from ontological,
epistemological and methodological perspectives. Thus, the study conceptualizes
quantitative and qualitative meta-theoretical assumptions
concerning
the nature of the knowable or reality
(ontology), views on truth and legitimate knowledge
(epistemology), and how the inquirer finds out knowledge (methodology). A critical analysis and synthesis of previously
published materials are employed, with the view of assisting and empowering
business researchers to understand the true distinction between quantitative
and qualitative paradigms. Bryman (2001: 106) suggests that ‘the distinction
between qualitative and quantitative research perspective is really a
technical matter whereby the choice between them is
to do with their suitability in answering
particular research questions’. Following this suggestion, it is not the aim of
this section to justify which research method is superior to the other. The
study, however, interrogates the incompatibility thesis of the two inquiries
resulting in the either-or position. The
rest of the paper is organised as follows: the next section looks at the
literature review; it contextualizes the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research from the ontological,
epistemological and methodological perspectives.
The last section concludes and summarises the review. 2.0 Literature Review All
research is based on some underlying philosophical assumptions about what
constitutes 'valid' research and which research method(s) is/are appropriate
for the development of knowledge in a given study.
The selection of European Journal of
Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839
(Online) Vol.7, No.3, 2015 218 research methodology depends on the paradigm
that guides the research venture. The term paradigm originated from the Greek word paradeigma
which means pattern and was first used by Kuhn (1962) to denote a conceptual
framework shared by a
community of scientists which provided them with a convenient model for examining problems and finding solutions. According to him, the term paradigm refers to a
research culture with a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that a
community of researchers has in common regarding the nature and conduct of
research (Kuhn, 1977). A paradigm hence implies
a pattern, structure and framework or system of
scientific and academic ideas, values and assumptions (Olsen, Lodwick, and
Dunlop, 1992). In simple terms, it is an
approach to thinking about and doing research. According to TerreBlanche and
Durrheim (1999), the research
process has three major dimensions: ontology, epistemology and methodology. According to them a research paradigm is an
all-encompassing system of interrelated practice
and thinking that define the nature of enquiry
along these three dimensions. Guba and Lincoln (1998) stated that a
research paradigm is intrinsically associated with the
concepts of ontology, epistemology and methodology. They suggested that a research
inquiry should be based on the concepts of ontology
(i.e., the way the investigator defines
the truth and reality), epistemology (i.e., the process in which the
investigator comes to know the truth and reality) and methodology (i.e., the
method used in conducting the investigation). According to these
researchers, the answer to questions regarding these three elements provides an
interpretative framework that guides the entire research process including strategies, methods and analysis.
Ontological
Issues in Business Research
The term Ontology is from two Greek
words (onto,
which means ‘being’ and logia, which means
‘science, study or theory’. Ontology refers
to a branch of philosophy concerned with articulating the nature and
structure of the world (Wand and Weber, 1993, p.
220). It specifies the form and nature of
reality and what can be known about it. There are two broad contrasting
positions – objectivism and constructionism;
objectivism holds that there is an independent reality and
constructionism that assumes that reality is the
product of social processes (Neuman, 2003).
The positivist paradigm of exploring social reality is based on the philosophical ideas of the French Philosopher, August Comte. According
to him, observation and reason are the best
means of understanding human behaviour; true knowledge is based on
experience of senses and can be obtained by
observation and experiment. At the ontological level, positivists assume that reality
is objectively given and is measurable using properties which are independent of the researcher and instruments; in other words,
knowledge is objective and quantifiable.
Positivistic thinkers adopt scientific methods and systematize the knowledge generation
process with the help of quantification to
enhance precision in the description of parameters and the relationship among them. Positivism is concerned
with uncovering truth and presenting it by empirical means (Henning, Van
Rensburg and Smit, 2004). According to Walsham (1995b) the positivist position
maintains that scientific knowledge consists of facts while its ontology considers reality as
independent of social construction. If research
study consists of a stable and unchanging reality, then the researcher can
adopt an ‘objectivist’ perspective: a realist ontology – a belief in an objective, real world - and detached
epistemological stance based on a belief that people’s perceptions and
statements are either true or false, right or wrong,
a belief based on a view of knowledge as hard, real and acquirable; they
can employ methodology that relies on control and manipulation
of reality. On the other hand, interpretive
researchers believe that reality consists of people’s subjective experiences of the
external world; thus, reality is socially
constructed – it is a human
construct (Mutch, 2005). According to Willis
(1995) interpretivists are anti-foundationalists,
who believe there is no single
correct route or particular method to knowledge.
Walsham (1993) argues that in the interpretive tradition there are no
‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ theories. Instead, they
should be judged according to how ‘interesting’ they are to the researcher as
well as those involved in the same areas. They attempt to derive their
constructs from the field by an in-depth examination of the phenomenon of
interest. Gephart (1999) argues that interpretivists assume that knowledge
and meaning are acts of interpretation, hence there
is no objective knowledge which is independent of thinking, reasoning
humans. Myers (2009) argues that the premise of
interpretive researchers is that access to reality (whether given or
socially constructed) is only through social constructions
such as language, consciousness and shared meanings.
Interpretive paradigm is underpinned by observation and interpretation, thus to observe is to collect information
about events, while to interpret is to make
meaning of that information by drawing inferences or by judging the match between the information and some abstract pattern
(Aikenhead, 1997). It attempts to understand phenomena through the
meanings that people assign to them (Deetz, 1996).
Reeves and Hedberg (2003, p. 32) note that the “interpretivist” paradigm stresses the need to put analysis in context.
The interpretive paradigm is European
Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN
2222-2839 (Online) Vol.7, No.3, 2015 219 concerned with understanding the world as it is from subjective experiences of
individuals. They use meaning (versus measurement) oriented methodologies, such as interviewing or participant observation, that
rely on a subjective relationship
between the researcher and subjects.
Interpretive research does not predefine dependent and independent variables, but focuses on the full
complexity of human sense making as the situation emerges (Kaplan and Maxwell,
1994). This is the interpretive approach, which aims to explain the subjective
reasons and meanings that lie behind social action. The interest of
interpretivists is not the generation of a new theory,
but to judge or evaluate, and refine interpretive theories.
Epistemological
Issues in Business Research Epistemology refers to the nature of the
relationship between the researcher (the knower) and it
denotes
“the nature of human
knowledge and understanding that can possibly be acquired
through different types of inquiry and alternative
methods of investigation" (Hirschheim, Klein, and Lyytinen, 1995: 20).
Epistemology poses the following questions: What is the relationship between
the knower and what is known? How do we know what we know? What counts as knowledge? There are two
broad epistemological positions: positivism and
interpretivism - constructivism. For positivists, who are evolved largely from a
nineteenth-century philosophical approach, the purpose of research is
scientific explanation. According to Neuman (2003)
positivism sees social science as an organized method for combining deductive
logic with precise empirical observations of
individual behaviour in order to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic
causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity. The nature of social
reality for positivists is that: empirical
facts exist apart from personal ideas or thoughts; they are governed by laws of
cause and effect; patterns of social reality are stable and knowledge of them
is additive
(Crotty, 1998; Neuman, 2003; Marczyk,
DeMatteo and Festinger, 2005). A basic assumption of this paradigm as Ulin,
Robinson and Tolley (2004) remarked is that the goal of science is to develop the most objective methods possible to get the closest
approximation of reality. Researchers who work from
this perspective explains in quantitative terms how variables interact,
shape events, and cause outcomes. They often
develop and test these explanations in experimental studies. Multivariate
analysis and techniques for statistical prediction
are among the classic contributions of this type of research. This framework
maintains that reliable knowledge is based on direct observation or
manipulation of natural phenomena through
empirical, often experimental, means (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, 2005; Neuman,
2003). On the other hand, an interpretivist/constructivist perspective, the
theoretical framework for most qualitative research, sees the world as
constructed, interpreted, and experienced by people
in their interactions with each other and with wider social systems (Maxwell,
2006; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Guba and Lincoln, 1985; Merriam, 1988).
According to this paradigm the nature of inquiry is interpretive and the
purpose of inquiry is to understand a particular phenomenon, not to
generalize to a population (Farzanfar, 2005).
Researchers within the interpretivist paradigm are naturalistic since
they apply to real-world situations as they unfold
naturally, more specifically; they tend to be non-manipulative, unobtrusive, and non-controlling. According to
Ulin, Robinson and Tolley (2004), qualitative research methodology often rely
on personal contact over some period of time between the researcher and
the group being studied. Building a
partnership with study participants can lead to deeper insight into the context under study, adding richness and depth
to the data. Thus, qualitative methodologies are inductive, that is,
oriented toward discovery and process,
have high validity, are less concerned
with generalizability, and are more
concerned with deeper understanding of
the research problem in its unique context (Ulin, Robinson and Tolley, 2004).
Both positivist and interpretive researchers hold that human behaviour may be patterned
and regular. However,
while positivists see this in terms of the laws of cause and effect, interpretivists view such patterns as
being created out of evolving meaning systems that people generate as
they socially interact
(Neuman, 2003). Since interpretive researchers place strong emphasis on better
understanding of the world through firsthand experience, truthful reporting and
quotations of actual conversation form insiders perspectives (Merriam, 1998) than
testing the laws of human behaviour (Bryman, 2001;
Farzanfar, 2005), they employ data gathering methods that are sensitive to
context (Neuman, 2003), and which enable rich and detailed, or thick
description of social phenomena by encouraging participants to speak freely and
understand the investigator’s quest for insight into a phenomenon that the
participant has experienced.
Owing to this, interview, focus group
discussion and naturalistic observation are the most widely used data gathering
methods for researchers using qualitative
research methodology. To the contrary, the
positivist researchers’ emphasis on explaining behaviour through measurable
data by using highly standardized tools such as questionnaire, psychological
tests with precisely worded questions. European Journal of Business and
Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol.7,
No.3, 2015 220
Issues of trustworthiness and
credibility, as opposed to the positivist
criteria of validity, reliability and objectivity,
are key considerations in the interpretivist paradigm. According to Ulin,
Robinson and Tolley (2004) positivists use validity, reliability, objectivity,
precision, and generalizability to judge the rigor of quantitative
studies as they intended to describe, predict, and verify empirical relationships in relatively controlled
settings. On the other hand, qualitative research that aims to explore, discover, and understand cannot use the
same criteria to judge research quality and
outcomes. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that the fundamental criterion for qualitative
reports is trustworthiness. How, they ask, can a
researcher be certain that “the findings of an inquiry are worth paying
attention to, worth taking account of? For research
to be considered credible and authentic investigations should be based on a sound rationale that
justifies the use of chosen methodology and the processes involved in data
collection and analysis.
Methodological Issues in Business Research Methodology refers to how the researcher
goes about practically finding out whatever he or
she believes can be known. It is a research
strategy that translates ontological and
epistemological principles into guidelines that show how research is to be
conducted (Sarantakos, 2005), and principles, procedures, and practices that
govern research (Kazdin, 1992, 2003a, cited in Marczyk, DeMatteo and Festinger,
2005). The positivist research paradigm underpins quantitative
methodology. The realist/objectivist ontology and
empiricist epistemology contained in the positivist paradigm requires a
research methodology that is objective or detached, where the emphasis is on measuring variables and
testing hypotheses that are linked to
general causal explanations (Sarantakos, 2005; Marczyk, DeMatteo and Festinger,
2005). Positivist research uses experimental designs to measure effects,
especially through group changes. The data collection techniques focus on
gathering hard data in the form of numbers to enable evidence to be presented
in quantitative form (Neuman, 2003; Sarantakos, 2005). In terms of methodology,
truth in positivist inquiry is
achieved through the verification and replication of observable findings (Guba and Lincoln, 2005), variable manipulations of the
research objects (Trochim, 2000) and the application of statistical analysis
(Bryman, 1998; Kim, 2003). Positivists therefore, emphasise the use of valid
and reliable methods in order to describe and explain the events. In contrast,
qualitative methodology is underpinned by interpretivist epistemology and
constructionist ontology. This assumes that meaning is embedded in the participants’ experiences and that this
meaning is mediated through the researcher’s own perceptions (Merriman, 1998). Researchers using
qualitative methodology immerse themselves in a culture by observing its people and their interactions,
often participating in activities, interviewing
key people, taking life histories, constructing
case studies, and analyzing existing documents or other cultural
artifacts. The qualitative researcher’s goal is to attain
an insider’s view of the group under study.
Methodologically, constructivists and interpretivists do not believe in
experimental or quasi-experimental research designs. Constructivists assume that reality is multifaceted and cannot be
fragmented or studied in a laboratory, rather
it can only be studied as a unified whole within its natural context (Candy, 1991).
Distinction
between Quantitative and Qualitative
Research Paradigms Pure quantitative research
relies on the collection of quantitative
data (i.e., numerical data) and follows the other characteristics of the
quantitative research paradigm shown in Table 1. Pure qualitative research relies on the collection of qualitative data (i.e., non-numerical data such as words and pictures). First, the quantitative
research approach primarily follows the confirmatory scientific method because
its focus is on hypothesis testing and
theory testing. Quantitative researchers consider it to be of primary
importance to state one’s hypotheses and then test those
hypotheses with empirical data to see if
they are supported. On the other hand, qualitative research primarily follows the exploratory scientific method. Qualitative
research is used to describe what is seen locally
and sometimes to come up with or generate
new hypotheses and theories. Qualitative research is used when little is
known about a topic or phenomenon and when one
wants to discover or learn more about it. It is
commonly used to understand people’s experiences and to express their
perspectives. Researchers advocating mixed
research argue that that it is important to use
both the exploratory and the confirmatory
methods in one’s research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Most researchers use inductive and deductive reasoning when they conduct research. For example, they use
inductive reasoning when they search for patterns in their particular
data, when they make generalizations (e.g., from
samples to populations), and when they make inferences as to the best
explanation.
Ultimately, the logic of confirmation is
inductive because we do not get
conclusive proof from empirical research.
Researchers use deductive reasoning when they deduce from their
hypotheses the observable consequences that should
occur with new empirical data if their hypotheses are true. Researchers also use deductive reasoning if they
conclude that a theory is false. If they draw this conclusion, they will then
move on to generate and test new ideas and new theories. Quantitative and
qualitative researches are also distinguished by different views of
human behaviour. In quantitative research, it is
assumed that cognition and behaviour are highly predictable and
explainable. Traditionally, the assumption of determinism, which means that all events are fully determined by one
or more causes, was made in quantitative research (Salmon, 2007). Because quantitative
research has not identified any universal or unerring laws of human behaviour, most contemporary quantitative
researchers search for probabilistic causes (Humphreys, 1989). A probabilistic
statement might go like this: “Adolescents
who become involved with drugs and alcohol are more likely to drop out of high
school than are adolescents who do not become involved with drugs and alcohol.” The point is that most quantitative researchers try to identify cause and-effect relationships
that enable them to make probabilistic predictions and generalizations. On
the other hand, qualitative researchers
often view human behaviour as being fluid, dynamic, and changing over time and
place, and they usually are not interested in generalizing beyond the
particular people who are studied.
In qualitative research, different
groups are said to construct their different realities or perspectives, and these social constructions, reciprocally, influence how they “see” or understand
their worlds, what they see as normal and abnormal,
and how they should act. Quantitative research often uses what might be called
a “narrow-angle lens” because the focus is on only one or a few causal factors
at the same time. Quantitative researchers attempt to hold constant the factors that are not being studied. This is often
accomplished under laboratory conditions in which an experimenter randomly
assigns participants to groups, manipulates only one factor, and then examines
the outcome.
Qualitative research uses a wide- and
deep-angle lens,
examining human choice and behaviour as it occurs naturally in all of its
detail. Qualitative researchers do not want to intervene in the natural flow of
behaviour. Qualitative
researchers study behaviour naturalistically and holistically. They try to understand multiple dimensions and layers of reality, such as the types of people in a group, how they think,
how they interact, what kinds of agreements or norms are present, and how these
dimensions come together holistically to describe the group.
Quantitative researchers attempt to
operate under the assumption of
objectivity. They assume that there is a reality to
be observed and that rational observers who look at the same phenomenon will basically
agree on its existence and its characteristics.
They try to remain as neutral or value-free
as they can, and they attempt to avoid human bias whenever possible. In a
sense, quantitative researchers attempt to study the phenomena that are of
interest to them “from a distance.”
Standardized questionnaires and other quantitative measuring tools are often
used to measure carefully what is observed.
In experiments, researchers frequently use random assignment to place
participants into different groups to eliminate the possibility of human bias
while constructing the comparison groups. In judging results, statistical
criteria are used to form many conclusions.
Qualitative researchers generally
contend that “reality is socially
constructed” (e.g., Guba and Lincoln, 1989); social
behaviour follows socially constructed norms. They argue that it is important
to “get close” to their objects of study
through participant observation so that they can experience for themselves
the subjective dimensions of the phenomena they
study.
In qualitative research, the
researcher is said to be the “instrument of data collection.” Rather than using
a standardized instrument or measuring device, the qualitative researcher asks the questions, collects
the data, makes interpretations, and records what is observed. The qualitative
researcher constantly tries to understand the people he or she is observing
from the participants’ or “natives’” or
“actors’” viewpoints. This is the concept of “empathetic
understanding.” Weber (1968) called this idea of
understanding something from the other person’s viewpoint verstehen.
Qualitative research is focused on
understanding the “insider’s perspective”
of people and their cultures and this requires
direct personal and often participatory contact. An obvious basic distinction between qualitative and quantitative
research is the form of data collection, analysis and presentation. While quantitative research presents statistical
results represented by numerical or statistical data, qualitative research
presents data as descriptive
narration with words and attempts to understand
phenomena in “natural settings”. This means that qualitative researchers study
things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret,
phenomena in terms of the
meanings people bring to them” (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2000: 3). Quantitative research makes use of questionnaires, surveys
and experiments to gather data that is revised and tabulated in numbers, which allows the data to be characterised by the use of
statistical analysis (Hittleman and Simon, 1997).
Quantitative researchers measure
variables on a sample of subjects and express the relationship between
variables using effect statistics such as correlations, relative frequencies,
differences between means; their focus is to a large extent on the testing of
theory.
Stake (1995) describes three major
differences in qualitative and quantitative emphasis, noting a distinction
between: explanation and understanding as the purpose of the inquiry; the
personal and impersonal role of the researcher; and knowledge discovered and
knowledge constructed (p.
37). Another major difference between the two is that qualitative
research is inductive and quantitative research is deductive.
In
qualitative research, a hypothesis is not needed to begin research; it
employs inductive data analysis to provide a better understanding of the
interaction of “mutually shaping influences” and to explicate the interacting
realities and experiences of researcher and participant (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). It allows for
a design to evolve rather than having a
complete design in the beginning of the study
because it is difficult if not impossible to predict the outcome of
interactions due to the diverse perspectives and value systems of the
researcher and participants, influence on the interpretation of reality and the
outcome of the study. However, all quantitative research requires a
hypothesis before research can begin. Quantitative
research generally reduces measurement to numbers. In survey research, for
example, attitudes are usually measured by using rating scales. The interviewer or questionnaire provides a statement,
and the respondents reply with one of the five allowable response
categories. After all respondents have provided
their answers, the researcher typically calculates and reports an average for
the group of respondents. On the other hand, qualitative researchers do
not usually collect data in the form of numbers.
Rather, they conduct observations and in-depth interviews, and the data are
usually in the form of words. The facilitator of
the focus group would probably videotape the group and tape-record what was
said. Later, the recording would be transcribed into words, which would then be
analyzed by using the techniques of qualitative data analysis. Also, when a
qualitative researcher enters the field and makes observations, the researcher
will write down what he or she sees, as well as relevant insights and
thoughts. The data are again in the form of words.
During qualitative data analysis, the researcher will try to identify categories
that describe what happened, as well as general themes appearing again
and again in the data.
Mixed Research
Paradigm
Mixed research involves the mixing of quantitative and qualitative research
methods, approaches, or other paradigm
characteristics. The exact mixture that is
considered appropriate will depend on the research questions and the
situational and practical issues facing a researcher. According to mixed
research, it is important to understand both the subjective
(individual), inter-subjective (language-based, discursive, cultural), and
objective (material and causal) realities in our
world. Although it is important not to influence or bias what you are
observing, it also is important to understand the insiders’ meanings and
viewpoints. In mixed research, the researcher uses
a mixture or combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, approaches,
or concepts in a single research study or in a set of related studies. The
qualitative and quantitative parts of a research study might be conducted
concurrently (conducting both parts at roughly the same time) or sequentially
(conducting one part first and the other second) to address a research question
or a set of related questions. Mixed researchers see positive value in both the
quantitative and the qualitative views of human behaviour. They view the use of only quantitative research or only
qualitative research as limiting and incomplete for many research problems.
Conclusion
The two major and most popular forms of
research are qualitative methodology, which is grounded on
interpretivist paradigm and quantitative methodology, which is grounded on
positivist paradigm.
Quantitative methodology is concerned with attempts to quantify social phenomena
and collect and analyze numerical data, and focus on the links among a smaller
number of attributes across many cases. Qualitative methodology, on the other
hand, is more concerned with understanding the meaning of social
phenomena and focus on links among a larger number
of attributes across relatively few cases. In any research endeavour, linking
research and philosophical traditions or schools of thought helps clarify a
researcher’s theoretical frameworks (Cohen, et al.
2000). The framework for any research includes beliefs about the nature of reality and humanity (ontology), the theory
of knowledge that informs the research (epistemology), and how that knowledge
may be gained (methodology) that brought about differences in the type of
research methodologies used in social science research. The fundamental divergence between qualitative
and quantitative inquiries lies in the logic of justification, not methods as
techniques. The two methodologies in question
were developed from two completely different ontological and epistemological perspectives and represent two distinct
worldviews or paradigms (Silverman, 2004). Guba
and Lincoln (1994) state that paradigms represent one’s set of basic beliefs
and as such must be accepted simply on faith. Each researcher should decide which
paradigm reflects his or her set of personal beliefs and adhere to that
worldview. It is argued that no one research
methodology is better or worse than the other as
both are proven to be useful in most research endeavours (Cohen, Manion and
Morrison, 2000; Silverman, 1997); what is critical is the selection of the
appropriate research methodology for an inquiry at hand. In the same vein
Merriman (1998) argues that getting started on a research project begins with examining
your own orientation to basic tenets about the
nature of reality, the purpose of doing research, and the type of knowledge
that can be produced. Given these description, it can be summed up that the
selection of research methodologies depends on “fitness for purpose” as opined by Tuli (2010).
Some authors emphasize the incompatibility of quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Guba and Lincoln (1989) argue that
meta-theoretical assumptions underlying the two approaches are so different
that any reconciliation would destroy the philosophical foundations of
each. Ontological and epistemological postulates of
each approach are so idiosyncratic that they cannot be combined. As Guba (1987)
states, one paradigm rules out the other, just as surely belief in round
world precludes belief in flat one. Nevertheless,
some argue that it is possible to subscribe to the philosophy of one approach
and employ the methods of another (Reichardt and Cook, 1979; Sale et al., 2002;
Walle, 1997; Walsh, 2003).
Sale et al. (2002) suggest that the fact
that the approaches are ontologically and epistemologically
incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined in a
single study if it is done for complementary purposes.
They caution that each method studies different phenomena and the distinction
of phenomena in mixed-method research is critical and should be accounted for.
This reveals an additive outcome for
mixed-methods research. On the basis of this account, it is concluded that
qualitative and quantitative work can be done in a single study or series of
investigations.
Mixed research involves mixing and combining
qualitative and quantitative research in single research studies. It is based
on the philosophy of pragmatism (i.e., what works
is what should be considered to be important in answering research questions).
Comments
Post a Comment