Methodology in research design

Methodology is a research strategy that determines what is to be studied and how it is done. What is to be studied is basically determined by the nature of the research questions that address the specific problem under investigation. How it is done is

90

determined by the techniques used to elicit the information that will give conclusive answers to the research questions. The general procedures or stage of enquiry and techniques are generally carried out through two common approaches, namely, quantitative and qualitative (Creswell, 2003). In the following sections, each approach is examined in terms of its philosophical underpinnings to a research strategy.

4.2.1 Quantitative approach

The quantitative methodology relies exclusively on numerical data. It uses a variety of statistical techniques that allows the exploration of relationships between variables (Gilbert, 2011). This method tends to be associated with ‘objectivity’ and is independent of the researcher’s involvement (Denscombe, 2007) once the data has been collected.

The philosophical approach of this method lies in positivism, which means that it embraces the notion that ‘social reality is out there’ and that the best approach to prove it is through data collection and hypothesis testing (Creswell, 2003; Davies, 2007).

The quantitative approach is helpful in studying statistically the characteristics of the people and in analysing spatial issues, providing information on ‘who’ and ‘where’ are the people at risk, but the approach does not specifically address their concern. The approach makes possible the analysis of large data sets and gives the correlation between various parameters. It also provides the exploratory tools for making inferences, but it does not explicitly explain the ‘why’ or specify the cause and effect.

Neuman (2006) found that the objectivity of the quantitative approach is often not convenient for exploring the complexities of the social world. Quantitative surveys are undertaken on a large scale to generate statistical data, but they do not help to understand people’s emotions and behaviour. A qualitative approach is therefore preferable when people’s perceptions are the focus of the study (Walliman, 2006).

4.2.2 Qualitative approach

In contrast to the quantitative, the qualitative approach to research relies more on language and description and the interpretation of the meaning of the findings. Davies (2007) considered that people explain and shape the world in the light of their own experiences, attitudes, and beliefs .This phenomenological approach takes into account the perspectives and lived experiences of an individual in an everyday world. Data

91

collection for qualitative analysis tends to involve close social contact. It is a non-linear and iterative research path that enables the researcher to create and develop new theories (Neuman, 2006). A qualitative methodology would thus enable the researcher to gain insight into the social world and to study its complexities and subtleties through the use of different tools such as questionnaires, interviews, notes, photographs and audio/video recordings, case studies, focus group interviews, and other participatory activities.

A report of the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator Mauritius, 2000) underlined the importance of considering the social context in which risks occur because people do not necessarily share the same perception of risks and their underlying causes. In this case, it is easier to follow cause and effect by collecting qualitative data through interviews and personal accounts of an individual’s life history (Gilbert, 2011). However, qualitative approaches may have some limitations. For example, the data collected might not be fully representative but instead might be subjective and value-laden. In addition, the researcher might influence the interviewee and inadvertently introduce his/her own viewpoints, values, and beliefs (Denscombe, 2007). Moreover, it is often difficult to gather the right people in one specific location for conducting focus group interviews or participatory activities. The success in carrying out of the activities depends on the time factor, the suitability of a location, and the convenience, availability, and representativeness of the participants.

4.2.3 Relationship between quantitative and qualitative approaches

In recent years, there has been much debate about the dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative research designs in social sciences (Gilbert, 2011). Quantitative approaches tended to be dominant in the early 1950s (Newman and Benz,1998) until new epistemologies emerged around 1960 that accounted for the value-laden nature of human social interaction. A shift from science-dominated statistical views to a more qualitative approach for understanding human behaviour and the complexities of the social world subsequently occurred. However, quantitative and qualitative approaches remained at the two ends of the spectrum in research strategies on the assumption that each approach had a different view about the nature of knowledge (ontology) and the means of generating it (epistemology). This distinction still remains debatable among

92

the quantitative and qualitative purists on the basis that the two forms of approaches have different types of knowledge claims. The gap between the two approaches was later bridged by a third paradigm, namely, the mixed-methods approach (Denscombe, 2008) on the basis that researchers often incorporate their subjectivities into their empirical observations to address their research questions, describe data, and perform analyses during the research process (Johnson and Onwueghuzie, 2004). Accordingly, quantitative data types can be converted into narratives that can be analysed qualitatively, and qualitative data types are converted into numerical codes that can be analysed statistically (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). This combination of approaches was supported by Creswell (2003, p.12) who, regarding philosophical basis of pragmatism, claimed that researchers are ‘free’ to choose the approaches that ‘best suit their needs and purposes’.