A look at the history of social research and the development of social research methods (see our brief history in A2) would suggest that there is a qualitative/quantitative divide between social researchers and that there has been heated debate over the past 50 years with regard to the value of quantitative or qualitative approaches to collecting and analysing data. As we have seen in A2, the different approaches are typically linked with different views on how the social world is seen and understood and how we can know about the social phe- nomena within our social world. Social research methods have developed along with these views. For example, quantitative methods in the social sciences were developed from those used in the physical sciences. These are predicated on the notions that: (a) the world has a physical reality, (b) it is possible to measure all the phenomena that occur, and (c) the re- sults of such experimental measurement will be the same whenever it is repeated. Within some social sciences (particularly psychology and, to some extent, sociology) these processes have been successfully adapted as social research approaches.
Alongside this in other disciplines, most notably anthropology, methods of studying so- cieties developed which involved the researcher closely with the members of the society themselves, in some cases living alongside for a time. These researchers were observing and listening to people within their own context and the data they were gathering came directly from the naturally occurring events and situations of the social world. An early example, written originally in 1955, is Street Corner Society: Social Structure of an Italian Slum (Whyte, 1993). This approach to studying the social world evolved into what has become known as a qualitative approach to collecting and working with data and methods of data collection have been developed that enable social researchers to gather and work with data produced by the research participants themselves.
The latter part of the twentieth century saw developments in both the quantitative (use of computers and the development of statistical analysis) and qualitative approaches (de- velopment of feminist research, new data collection and analysis methods and computer software to aid analysis). However, some boundaries between the two approaches remain and within one discipline or area of research a particular approach can still be dominant and thus can influence the choice of methods that are acceptable for use by student re- searchers. Recent years have seen some of these disciplinary boundaries broken through with, for example, increasing numbers of research projects within the medical sciences, which have traditionally designed research based on gathering statistical data, taking a qualitative approach to research.
What is . . .
The difference between quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods
Quantitative research methods are primarily concerned with gathering and work-
As shown in A2and A3, the data about the social world that is available to us does depend on the ontological (the way the social world is seen to be and what can be assumed about the nature and reality of the social phenomena that make up the social world) and episte- mological (what can be known about the social world) approaches the researcher takes. In practice, different approaches do result in the collection of different types of data which in turn require different data collection methods. In A3we looked at different types of data, and the distinctions between structured (quantitative) and semi-structured/unstructured (qualitative) data are the most relevant here. We can use these ideas to set out the key fea- tures of quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis before going on to consider ways of choosing the methods that will help you to answer your re- search questions or test your hypotheses.
Table B4.1 Features of quantitative and qualitative approaches
Quantitative Qualitative
saw in A2, quantitative data is typically gathered when a positivist epistemologi- cal approach is taken and data is collected that can be statistically analysed.
Qualitative research methods are primarily concerned with stories and accounts
including subjective understandings, feelings, opinions and beliefs. As we saw in
A2, qualitative data is typically gathered when an interpretivist epistemological approach is taken and when the data collected is the words or expressions of the research participants themselves (A2, A3).
Mixed methods can best be thought of as combining qualitative and quantitative
methods in a way that is best for a specific research project.
Ontological and epistemological approaches are positivist (assumes that the social world is real)
Ontological and epistemological approaches are interpretivist (assumes that reality is a social construct)
Research questions may be set out as testable hypotheses
Research questions may be developed using subsidiary questions
The research question can be answered (or hypothesis tested) by counting events and using statistical analysis
The research question can be answered by describing and explaining events and gathering participants’ understandings, beliefs and experiences
Researcher normally knows what he is looking for
Researcher may only have a general idea of what he is looking for
Research design/strategy is usually fixed before data collection
Research design/strategy may be fluid and evolutionary
Objective (researcher is not part of the research)
Subjective (researcher is involved as a social being)
Often uses tools (such as surveys or questionnaires) to collect data
Usually no use of tools: the researcher can be seen as the main instrument for collecting data Data is often represented by numerical or
named codes
Data may be in any form
It may be possible to generalise from the data
Not usually possible to generalise from the data
Example B4.1
A darts match
It is Wednesday evening at 9.45 p.m. Steve and Tony, who are second-year students at the University of Anywhere, are playing darts in the Students’ Union bar. Steve is reading Sociology and Tony is studying Social Policy. It is the end of the summer exams and they are both feeling relieved that another year is over. To celebrate, they have had several drinks. The bar is busy and quite noisy. There is a crowd of rugby players at the bar who are very loud.
Tony has found it a difficult year. He has had a number of personal issues that have meant that he needed to go home more often than he would have liked and he has found some of the academic work quite challenging. He is feeling short of money because he has not had time to have a job this term. Steve has had a busy year too (he works part-time in the library) but is in a really good mood because he has a new girlfriend whom he will be seeing later in the evening.
They are playing 301 (starting and ending on a double). Both are good players, but Tony has won many more games during the last year. The throws they make are as follows:
Steve wins the game and Tony buys him a drink. Soon afterwards they go their sep- arate ways.
Some things to think about:
1.If you wanted to research the events set out above, what are you trying to find out?
2.Would you choose qualitative or quantitative research methods?
3.Would your results be different depending on your choice of methods? Some reasons for using quantitative methods:
The actual game of darts is easy to research in this way.
The variables (number of darts thrown, score for each dart) are numeric and it would be possible to use statistical analysis.
It would be possible (over time) to calculate a player’s chance of winning and to produce details (for example) of average scores.
Darts leagues use quantitative analysis if they need to calculate a player’s handicap.
Some reasons for using qualitative methods:
It would be possible to learn more about the context of the game (timing, loca- tion, players’ mood, and so on).
Throw Steve Tony
1 Double 20, 18, 12 (231 left) 20, 20, 5 (301 left)
2 19, double 19, treble 7 (153 left) Double 19, bull, 19 (194 left) 3 20, treble 1, treble 20 (72 left) 19, 19, 19 (137 left)