RESEARCH DESIGN

Approaches to conducting research are usually described as being either quantitative or qualitative. These approaches are also known respectively as ‘experimental’, ‘hypothetico-deductive’ or ‘positivistic’ (more recently

‘postpositivistic’) and ‘naturalistic’, ‘contextual’, ‘inductive’ or ‘interpretative’. These two research approaches are often described as being from opposing

epistemological positions, each of which is associated with particular approaches to data collection and research strategy. The positivistic position contends that

there is a reality there to be studied and understood, whereas postpositivists argue that reality can never fully be apprehended, only approximated (Guba 1990). Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between researcher and what is being studied and the situational constraints imposed on the study (Denzin and Lincoln 1998).

Historically, qualitative research was defined within the positivist paradigm and has only come into its own in the last century.

Henwood and Pidgeon (1993) describe the dominant paradigm in the experimental quantitative approach as being concerned with universal laws of cause and effect based on a belief that reality consists of a world of objectively defined facts. The deductive, hypothesis testing method is used to establish causal relationships. Findings should be replicable and generalisable, and quantification of results predominates. In comparison, the naturalistic paradigm is described as having a number of characteristics: commitment to constructivistic epistemologies, (in ethnographic studies), an emphasis on description rather than explanation, the representation of reality through the eyes of participants, the importance of viewing the meaning of experience both in complexity and in context, and an assumption that concepts and theory emerge from the data.

The label ‘qualitative research’ is a collective term for a range of approaches that differ in theoretical assumptions, the understanding of the subject under

investigation and their methodological focus. Mason (1996), while avoiding the temptation to define qualitative research, did suggest some common elements, namely that qualitative research was:

• “Concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced or produced.

• Based on methods of data generation which are flexible and sensitive to the social context in which data are produced (rather than rigidly standardised or structured, or removed from ‘real life’ or ‘natural’ social context, as in some forms of experimental method.)

• Based on methods of analysis and explanation building, which involve

understanding of complexity, detail and context. Qualitative research aims to produce rounded understandings on the basis of rich, contextual, and

As can be seen from Mason’s description above, in the second bullet point, she is making direct comparisons between the two research traditions. Her description of the experimental method as ‘rigid and ‘removed from real life’ indicates perhaps her negative feelings towards this approach. This subtle expression of feeling was quite common in the literature as it is likely most authors would favour one

approach over another, depending on their own ontological and epistemological standpoint.

The notion of opposition between qualitative and quantitative research approaches has been challenged by a number of authors. Bryman (1999), while agreeing that there are differences between the two research traditions, states that these differences are not as rigid as descriptions imply. One of the fundamental

differences normally purported is between the epistemological positions of the two traditions and their relationship with research strategy and data collection. Bryman gives some examples where the relationship between epistemology and data collection could be questioned, e.g. survey researchers (quantitative research) frequently claim to be looking at the social world from their respondents’

perspective (qualitative viewpoint); and participant observation (typically qualitative research data collection method) could be deployed within a theory testing

framework (usually associated with quantitative research). Bryman is not sure if the argument is that there is a link between epistemology and data collection or that there ought to be a link. His conclusion is that:

“the tendency to associate particular methods with particular epistemologies is little more that a convention (which took root in the 1960s), and it has little to recommend it, either as a description of the research process or as a prescriptive view of how research should be done.” (Bryman 1999, p64)

Hammersley (1999) builds on this argument that distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research is of little value and comments that it is of ‘limited use

and... carried some dangeri (p70). Through a critique of the seven most commonly

viewed distinguishing issues between the two traditions he concludes that rather than reverting from two paradigms to one, he argues that due to the diversity within social research, there are in fact more than two paradigms. As with Bryman, Hammersley considers that philosophical and political assumptions should not

determine the method chosen, rather, the method should fit the demands of the inquiry.

Combining qualitative and quantitative methods is almost by definition an issue of across-method triangulation. This idea of combining research approaches appears to be growing in favour with some researchers (Mayring 2001), however Witt (2001) cautions against the indiscriminate combination of the two methods. He argues that the research approaches are designed for different research goals, and accommodate different kinds of data and different sample types. He argues that the outcome of combining the two research methods would not necessarily achieve the best from both worlds.

There is an increasing tendency for researchers to view the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of complementary rather than opposing approaches. There are an increasing number of research designs that incorporate both approaches in the context of a single study. Hammersley (1996) identifies three forms of study where qualitative and quantitative methods are used:

1. Methodological triangulation (using one method to verify or validate the findings from another method).

2. Facilitation (where one method is used as groundwork for another method). 3. Complementary (where two methods are used together to explore different

aspects of a research question).

While recognising and appreciating the tenets within specific research traditions, I support the notion that there could be instances where the use of a combination of approaches was suitable. The primary purpose of any research design is to enable the researcher to address the research questions or hypothesis under study. Ignoring the potential that cross method triangulation may offer could restrict or diminish the outcome of the study.