Qualitative and quantitative research methods are often put at different ends of the spectrum however, they can be complimentary of each other. In many cases, quantitative research can be carried out before or after qualitative research in order to defend the findings or give a basis for further research. It is due to this symbiotic relationship that the mixed method approach was formed and used in this study. Researchers are able to question and further test some of the information gathered through quantitative methods by adopting qualitative methods. This increases the accuracy of the study for the researcher. Qualitative researchers use ethnography, historical narratives, first person accounts, photographs and biographies whereas quantitative researchers use statistics, mathematical information, graphs, and tables and write their research in the third person.
While both quantitative and qualitative research methods respect the individuals view point, they differ in their approach. Qualitative researchers use interviews and observations while quantitative researchers use more experimental methods. These experimental methods are viewed as not objective and unreliable by qualitative researchers (Denzin & Lincoln 2005).
Qualitative researchers are much more likely to face these constraints compared to quantitative researchers. Qualitative researchers study the everyday and while quantitative researchers are seen to remove themselves from the everyday are much more concerned with science based route of research. Quantitative researchers like to study large cases that are randomly selected whereas qualitative researchers like to study particular cases. Quantitative researchers seek their descriptions through hard facts and let the numbers and statistics speak for themselves whereas qualitative researchers value the ‘rich descriptions’ they get from the everyday.
Qualitative researchers believe quantitative researchers limit themselves using their scientific methods. Qualitative researchers trust that by using their methods they get a
59
deeper and better understanding of their research rather than using only statistical data (Silverman 2003).
From the researchers epistemological form it is felt that neither qualitative nor quantitative research should be used in exclusivity. The realist background is why the author selected the interview process. It also allowed the researcher to gain vast amounts of information that otherwise would not have been collected. However, the interpretive side to the authors researching composition led them to require a heavily qualitative survey. By using both interviews and surveys allowed the researcher to use triangulation to support their findings.
With regard to the interview, which this study involves, a realist believes in ‘what you see is what you get: the senses portray the world accurately’ (Boeree 1999). Silverman (2003) advices that a researcher should choose the interview sample by random selection and all interviews should include the same questions and same style of questions. Silverman also highlights two other ways a researcher can approach an interview. These are namely; emotionalism and constructionism. A researcher who adopts the emotionalism approach builds a relationship with the interviewee in order to understand and be given access to their personal experiences and perceptions (Silverman 2003). This is the approach this study used, as it involves an interview with open-ended questions. This approach was necessary as the research questions for this study involve gaining the perceptions, attitudes and knowledge of management and staff. While the same questions were asked, some interviews gave rise to further questions that needed to be asked to clarify matters that arose. This approach however, makes the analysis of the interview much more difficult and a lot more time consuming than interviews that have a standardised approach (Silverman 2003). Constructionism is a model which encourages researchers to focus upon how particular phenomena and research factors and elements are put together through the close study of particular behaviours (Silverman 2003). When interpreting the findings it was important that the transcripts and note taken during the interview were analysed and interpreted in the way the interviewee meant them to be interpreted.
Silverman (2003) feels open-ended questions may put words into people’s mouths. He goes on to say that when the interviewer lets the interviewee continue talking, even though what they are saying may be irrelevant, it may lead to the interviewee believing
60
this is what the interviewer wants to hear, so I’ll keep talking! The researcher felt that the use of open-ended questions was necessary in this research to obtain the information they required. Dichotomous or closed questions would not have been substantial enough. The author understood that it was important to ensure the interviewee did not keep talking if the topic was irrelevant or if they had misunderstood the questions. However, this was not a problem that was encountered by the researcher at interviews, probably due to the fact that a practice interview was conducted to identify any such problematic questions.
Humanism is a term Silverman (2003) developed in which the researcher is meant to ask themselves: how are we to believe what the interviewee is telling you? How valid are the experiences? Silverman (2003) states that the interviewer must have some common sense when conducting the interview and says that they may need to be tactical in their approach of asking a certain question at the correct time during the interview. Once again this did not prove to be a problem at the interviews for this study. Management were willing to fully cooperate in answering all of the questions and the fact that they were going to be anonymous in the research helped the above issues stay theoretical.
An epistemology was included earlier in this chapter in an attempt to outline and eradicate where any conscious bias may have arisen. By removing personal opinion and stance, the research will be more reliable. As it was deemed necessary that both surveys and interviews were required for the research it concludes that the researcher used both interpretive and realist research. Both methods were used so that the study is balanced. This gives further validity to the study.