Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies

Quantitative methodologies dominated the field of social and behavioural sciences throughout most of the 20th century and historically have been closely linked to the research paradigm of positivism (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Razavieh, 2010; Robson, 2011; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003a; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Quantitative research refers to a range of methodological approaches associated with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of numerical data (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). It is based on positivism, which reflects the perspective that “social research should adopt scientific method, that this method is exemplified in the work of modern physicists, and that it consists of the rigorous testing of hypotheses by means of data that take the form of quantitative measurements” (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994, p. 251). Further, positivism asserts that true

knowledge can be obtained from the direct experience or observation of an objective, value-free, and uninvolved knower (Wellington, 2000), while rejecting invisible and

theoretical entities (Robson, 2011). According to this paradigm, knowers (inquirers) should be independent from the known (knowledge) by eliminating their biases and remaining emotionally separated from the objects of research (Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In this way, they will not allow their values to influence how they perform their studies and interpret their results (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). For the positivist researcher, the goal is to derive generalisations and hard numerical data (Wellington, 2000).

During the last quarter of the 20th century, many researchers in the social and behavioural sciences rejected positivism and proposed qualitative research, which is associated with a worldview known as constructivism and its variants (Niglas, 2010; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003a). Qualitative research refers to a diverse range of techniques associated with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of narrative data (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Proponents of qualitative research argued that the use of positivism is inadequate in social science research because the focus in these fields is on human phenomena, which are distinct from inanimate objects studied in the physical sciences; thus, they advocated the use of alternative methodologies (Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Robson, 2011), such as constructivist/

hermeneutic approaches (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005a). Constructivists assert that reality is socially constructed and hence subjective (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005a). According to this school of thought, the knower (inquirer) makes a difference to the known (knowledge), and the researcher’s goal is to “explore perspectives and shared meanings and to develop insights into situations, e.g., schools, classrooms”

(Wellington, 2000, p. 16).

The use of quantitative approaches in research has both advantages and disadvantages (Connolly, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Quantitative

methods such as survey questionnaires are valuable for the study of a large number of participants using a short timeframe. Generally, this type of method has greater credibility when it comes to being accepted by decision makers, such as politicians, administrators, and program funders (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). When

quantitative research data are collected from a representative sample of a population, the research findings can be generalised to the entire target population (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Robson, 2011).

There are, however, limitations in the use of the quantitative research. For example, quantitative findings may lack rich descriptions about the topic being examined (Lawrence, 2004) and thus be too abstract and general when it comes to applying them in particular social contexts (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). As a result, some researchers have argued that “the dead hand of numbers and statistics was no way to understand anything worthwhile about people and their problems” (Robson, 2011, p.18). In contrast to this negative position, Connolly (2007) argues that the problem is not with the quantitative approach per se, but rather with the way it is sometimes conducted. When used properly in educational research, quantitative data analysis can effectively reveal the diversity and complexity of social life; thus, it provides a powerful and increasingly important tool that can be utilised to

complement and expand on the insights obtained through qualitative research. Qualitative methods are becoming increasingly prevalent in education research. The main advantage of a qualitative research is that a variety of qualitative approaches can be utilised to collect descriptive, narrative data, allowing in-depth understanding of the research problem (Gay et al., 2009). Qualitative approaches, therefore, are useful for producing “thick description” for the purpose of

understanding social phenomena in their natural settings (Draper, 2004, p. 643). Further, this type of research is responsive to the needs of local situations, conditions, and constituents (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

A limitation of qualitative method, however, is that it can be time consuming, as it requires a higher involvement in some social world. This undoubtedly represents a key reason for the popularity of quantitative approaches – which are relatively less time consuming because they likely involve very limited or possibly no connection with the participants under study (Blaikie, 2010). Moreover, because qualitative research usually involves a limited number of cases, the results obtained might not be generalisable to other populations or settings. That is, the results might be unique to the relatively few participants involved in the research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

From the discussion above, it is clear that quantitative and qualitative approaches represent different paradigms, and both have their own characteristic strengths and weaknesses. Because all approaches have their shortcomings, it is necessary to have different approaches available so that topics under consideration can be looked at from more than one perspective.

Recently, there has been a rapid growth in the use of quantitative and

qualitative approaches in the same study; this is often called mixed methods research (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) advocated the use of mixed methods, stating that: “We hope the field will move beyond quantitative versus qualitative research arguments because, as recognised by mixed methods research, both quantitative and qualitative research are important and useful” (p. 14). The mixed methods approach will be discussed in more details in the subsequent section.