Quantitative Research Methods (The Positivist/Pragmatic Approach)

The quantitative or positivist approach uses numerical data in making large scale generalisations and in doing so seeks objectivity and detachment from its subject matter. According to Mertens (2005), quantitative research is concerned with

formality and objectivity within systematic processes which are then used to obtain a statistical understanding of the world, population or sample size.

Aveyard (2007) expresses the view that quantitative research is seen to be appropriate when it is required to be interpreted numerically and when underlying and specific trends need to be identified. This method is best employed in cases

94 where a high number of participants are involved in a survey or the data set includes a high volume of variables:

Quantitative research sometimes referred to as positivist research, uses experimental methods and/or methods that involve the use of numbers in the collection of data. Traditionally there is no involvement between the

researcher and participant and the researcher stands metaphorically ‘behind a glass screen’ to conduct his/her research

(Aveyard, 2007, p.25) Quantitative research has statistical relevance in considering whether a piece of research is reliable and valid. Its strength lies in the fact that when conducted properly it is expected that another researcher undertaking the same experiment or research will attain the same conclusions. The statistical robustness and validity of quantitative research is an element that qualitative research does not have.

Due to the relatively low numbers of participants interviewed and the information sought, that is, individuals’ constructions of mental health - it was thought that quantitative approaches would not be appropriate in this research. It was for this same reason that a mixed method approach was not considered to be beneficial for the purpose of this research.

It should be noted that there are quantitative methods that are relevant when only a relatively small number of participants are involved; single case design experiments being one such method. This approach is useful when the research is aimed at individual performance outcomes rather than group performance outcomes. Within my research the individual constructions held by the participants had already been revealed during the interviews together with the children’s views about TaMHS therapeutic interventions. Single case design experiments, in my opinion, would not

95 have been as effective in analysing the rich stories that the participants had to tell compared with the qualitative approach that I chose to adopt.

3.4.2 Qualitative Research Methods (The Interpretive or Relativist Approach)

According to Willig (2001), a qualitative approach within social research has a propensity towards meaning and how people make sense of the world and the immediate environments around them. Pope et al (2007) further explain that such an approach is termed interpretive because the approach centres on an empathetic understanding of meaning and is therefore directed towards generating a new conceptual understanding of theoretical explanations. In this research, for example, this approach was effective because it revealed qualitative data about the

respondents’ constructions of mental health, and offered the children the opportunity to evaluate their experiences of therapeutic interventions accessed through TaMHS. Although qualitative research lacks the statistical robustness of quantitative

research, its aims are very different. Qualitative research is not necessarily interested in statistical analysis but in the richness of participants’ experience. Experience, it could be argued, is not objective; however, it is the subjectivity of people’s experiences that makes qualitative methods worthwhile. Regarding

qualitative methods, Aveyard (2007) explains that qualitative data are often collected through the interpretations, accounts and verbal descriptions of those participating in the research rather than by numerical facts and the resultant interpretations which is the mainstay of quantitative approaches. Qualitative approaches therefore employ methods such as in-depth interviews as the main type of data collection as this allows meaning through exploration of the topic with the research participants to be made.

96 Qualitative research is often criticised because of its inability to be replicated and, more often than not, the participant selection tends not to be random. Another criticism of this type of research is that unlike quantitative methods, qualitative methods are not reliable. Reber (1985) counters this assumption by saying that the attributes of qualitative methods makes redundant the arguments relating to its reliability. In addition, the author says, reliability is a generic term used to illustrate the dependability of a measurement device or test. Within quantitative research dependability equates to consistency which in turn means the degree to which the measurement device or test yields the same approximate results when utilised repeatedly under similar directions. The author further explains that In qualitative research, dependability is not necessary because the researcher is more interested in the individual rich pictures the participants create rather than the uniformity and potential replication of each picture.

The strength of qualitative research, however, is its ability to investigate ideas within ecologically valid contexts. The importance of validity within qualitative methods cannot be over-emphasised. Validity in qualitative research is not simply a matter of the exact findings being relevant to the research questions; the issue of good

practice is central. Tindall (2002), in explaining the term, says that validity is an integral element. It has to do with the aptitude and acumen of the researcher to make known and represent other people’s interpretations. Validity therefore becomes the quality of the knower- in relation to his/her data and developed by different vantage points and forms of knowing. It is, then, personal, relational and contextual.

Aveyard (2007) asserts that another dimension for opting for a qualitative approach is because it also lends itself to phenomenology whereby through in-depth interviews

97 participants have the opportunity to explore and describe their lived experiences within the interview setting. As a purpose of this research focuses on understanding the constructions people have of mental health outside the realm of those who are mental health professionals and experts themselves, it was felt that a qualitative approach was more appropriate. Such an approach focuses on the rich and lived experiences of the participants collated from interviews rather than statistical analysis. It must also be stressed that the decision to include children in the study introduced a power dimension to the research. As hitherto stated, children were interviewed in order to encapsulate their experiences in schools in a way that will enable their views to be considered within the competing discourses of parents and professionals. This process is however, problematic for the researcher. France (2004) stresses that the researcher has the power to influence the presentation of views by the design of the questions asked:

It is impossible to separate out the voice of the researcher- given that they have selected the topic, designed the questions and constructed the final report. To see ‘giving a voice’ as a valueless project is to deny the politics of doing research

(France, 2004, p.179) France (2004) explains further that it is important to consider other perspectives if greater depth within the research is to be engendered:

Others may also have important contributions to make, for example, parents and professionals may have an alternative perspective that adds to our understanding of the broader social and cultural processes that help shape and impact upon the lives of young people

98 Bringing children into the research paradigm was not taken lightly due to their

potentially vulnerable status; first because of their age (they were all primary school pupils) and second, their situation (they were deemed to have experienced some degree of emotional difficulty). Giving them a voice and thereby empowering them to evaluate their own experiences of TaMHS served two main purposes: (1) it validated their views because no one had done so in my local authority prior to this research being undertaken (2) it made them the focus of the research and therefore the researcher’s dependency on their cooperation minimised the power dynamics

between the researcher and the participants. Tindall (2002) acknowledges the power of the researcher and the importance of reducing it; she advises that the focus

should be to minimise the power differential and to employ active participation within the process to the extent that we can ensure that there is no exploitation.

Ladd (2003) gives a very stark account of the power differential between the interviewer and participants, especially when the latter are children and states that the traditional structures within academia are characterised by a privileged subject investigating an underprivileged object.

Giving children a free reign to talk about their experiences hopefully minimises the chance of such gap in the power relationship from happening.