The differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches

When facing the issue of data collection, social researchers always have to make a choice on a qualitative approach or quantitative approach (although sometimes they are mixed). As Bryman suggests, the most obvious distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is that the qualitative study tends to deal with soft data, such as words, sentences, photos and symbols, while the quantitative study tends to deal with hard data in the form of numbers (Bryman, 2004; Lawrence, 2003). In fact, the crucial difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches is not only about the type of data they collect; it is also about “foundational assumptions”, which Willies (2007) describes as the givens that are assumed to be true.

The basic difference of the foundational assumptions starts from ontology, which is “concerned with the nature of reality and reflect different prescriptions of what can be real and what cannot” (Willies, 2007, p. 9). Ontology is the study of “being” (Gray,

2013: 19) and different positions within it. One ontological position is objectivism, which assumes that there is singular, static and objective reality (Brewer et al., 2000; Creswell, 1994; Schutt, 1999). It also values that identifying the characteristics of the social world in terms of entities which are ordered and predictable, and can be identified and recorded without affecting the entities themselves (Matthews, 2010). Another ontological position is constructivism, which assumes there are multiple realities which are constructed by participants’ social interaction and reflection (Brewer et al., 2000; Creswell, 1994; Schutt, 1999; Matthews, 2010). Constructivism believes that “the social world is only real in sense and is constructed by ideas of social actors” (Matthews, 2010, p. 25). In fact, the basic difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches is often about ontological positioning. Quantitative approaches take objectivism as its foundational ontological position and believes there is an objective reality, while qualitative approaches take constructivism and insist that there is a constructed reality which is made up by social actors with their own local, everyday experience (Brewer et al., 2000)

Another basic difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches is about epistemology. If ontology is about the nature of “being”, epistemology is about the nature of “knowing”. It tries to understand “how we know what we know” (Crotty, 1998, p. 8). Similar to ontology, epistemology also has two broad positions, which are highly relevant to those two ontological positions. Interpretivism, which is closely linked to constructivism, believes that knowing is a process of interpretation that understandings and explanations of social phenomena can be interpreted rather than be objectively observed (Matthews, 2010). Interpretivism also insists that subjectivity is unavoidable and the meaningfulness of social phenomena is granted by the value attached by onlookers (Brower et al., 2000). Researchers are regarded as part of the social world, and bring their own meaning and understanding into the social world (Matthews, 2010). Another main epistemological position, which is closely linked to objectivism, is positivism. It assumes that knowing is a process of observing and recording rather than a subjective understanding of the social world (Matthews, 2010). It also insists that social reality has an external existence to researchers, and researchers should be seen as independent and objective observers

(Gray et al., 2013, p. 20). Therefore, another basic difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches is the epistemological difference. Qualitative approaches take the interpretivist position and insist that “knowing” is an interactive process between researchers and social phenomena (Creswell, 1994; Schutt, 1999), while quantitative approaches take the positivist position, and believe that “knowing” is a rigorous process of scientific inquiry investigating social reality which exist externally to researchers (Gray et al., 2013). Its researchers attempt to remain detached and objective to what they are trying to know (Brower et al., 2000). Besides ontology and epistemology, another difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches is the foundational assumptions regarding value bases. Quantitative approaches often insist that researchers are conducting research with value-free and unbiased data (Creswell,1994; Schutt, 1999). Thus, quantitative research is often written in the third person and past tense, to “enhance the sense of researcher detachment and value-free depiction” (Brower et al., 2000, p. 366). Qualitative researchers believe that participants and researchers are unavoidably value-laden, so qualitative research is often written in the first person and present tense, to help “draft” readers’ participation in interpreting evidence they present (Brower et al., 2000).

As discussed above, differences in foundational assumptions such as ontology and epistemology lay the fundamental differential basis between quantitative approach and qualitative approaches. Based on these fundamental differences, researchers discuss methodological differences, which are commonly regarded as obvious differences between the qualitative and quantitative methods, and fiercely debated by researchers. Table 2 compares the differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches in methodological activities. As listed, these differences cover many aspects of methodological activities when doing a research such as analytic process, research design, research questions and sampling. In fact, quantitative and qualitative approaches are such different concepts that heading to different direction from ontology and epistemology, then go further on methodological activities. Their differences are not only about the type of data collected: numbers or text. “They

involve assumptions and beliefs on several levels and cover philosophical position about the nature of the world, about how we understand the world and the relationship between social science research and professional practice” (Willis, 2007). Therefore, the choice of quantitative or qualitative is not only a choice of data type or even methodological activities, it can be also a choice of belief about how you regard the world and how to understand the world.

Table 2: Difference between qualitative and quantitative approach

Although quantitative and qualitative approaches have big differences in philosophical assumptions, however, they are not necessarily polar opposites. Mixed methods, which are also referred as “multi-method,” “multi-strategy,” or “triangulation by method” (Bryman, 2006; Creswell, 2007), emerged in the 1980s as a research approach combining traditional qualitative and quantitative approaches. Unlike post-positivism or constructivism, this new research approach roots itself in another epistemological assumption of pragmatism, in which subjective and objective knowledge are both valued (Cherryhomes, 1992). Pragmatists concentrate

Methodological Difference between Qualitative and Quantitative

Methodological activities Qualitative Quantitative

Analytic process Inductive Deductive

Basis for conclusion Evidence from naturally occurring, everyday experience

Replicable, numerical data

Cause-effect explanations Idiographic; emergent, unfolding process of interconnected actions

Nomothetic; relations among static variables

Research design Emergent, improvisational; openness of meaning

Static design; meanings closed before study begins

Types of research questions Marginal or hard to study settings and groups; ambiguous phenomena; open-ended questions

Specific, measurable variables and relationships

Goal of sampling Explanatory power; variation and richness

Generalizability

Source: Based on Burrell and Morgan (1979), Creswell (1994), Rubin and Rubin (1995),and Schutt (1999)

on the “what works”, and focus on the “research problem” instead of the “research approach or method” (Creswell, 2003). Therefore, researchers who hold the position of pragmatism can choose research strategies from highly quantitative to mostly qualitative (Greenstein, 2006).

Mixed methods have been more and more commonly used in recent decades since an increasing number of researchers suggested that both numerical and text data can help to answer research questions, and quantitative and qualitative methods could be compatible. One could benefit from the complement between qualitative and quantitative approaches and the possibility of achieving a more complete analysis with both of the two research approaches. Furthermore, the focus on the “research question”, which is highly promoted by pragmatism and mixed methods, offers another research pathway that goes across the loyalty to quantitative or qualitative approaches, and applies a wide range of methods to understand the research question.

6.2.1.2 Implications for this research

In this research, the research goal or research question is the most significant consideration when choosing a research method. The primary goal of this research is to “understand the nature of the central-local relationship in China”. Such an understanding does not mean exploring the appearance of power distribution structure, but rather to discover the in-depth characteristics of the central-local relationship in China including political aspect and fiscal relationships. Thus, those who are closely involved in the central-local relationship in China are probably the most important source from whom to collect the data. The daily experience of these participants can contribute to the understanding of the operation of central-local relationships in a practical sense. Qualitative research approaches typically stress the importance of “understanding the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants” (Bryman, 2004, p. 266). It is the more holistic perspective which treats people as creative, compassionate living beings, not as objects (Lawrence, 2003). Therefore, by using a qualitative method, this research

had easier access to participants’ experiences of the central-local relationship and could gain potentially complex data (Lawrence, 2003). A qualitative research approach also offered an understanding of the policy process that might better answer the research question than a quantitative approach could. Therefore, a qualitative approach is a more appropriate way to collect data for this research.

Another research goal of this thesis is to understand how the central-local relationship affects the healthcare policy in China. It is an exploration on the interaction between the daily operation of central-local relations and particular stages of healthcare policy process. This exploration emphasizes the policy process and context. Thus, participants who are involved in the healthcare policy process are a crucial data source. In addition, context, as Pierson stated (Pierson, 2004), is important to understanding social processes. The data, especially in-depth data in a “practical sense”, from people who are familiar with the context and healthcare policy process in China would make a great contribution to achieve the research goals. Qualitative research always uses the language of “cases and context” and focuses on detailed exploration of cases arising from real social life, whilst quantitative research uses “variables and hypotheses” as language and emphasizes measuring variables or testing hypotheses linked to causal explanations (Lawrence, 2003, p. 139). Qualitative approaches such as interviews or focus groups are very good at discovering the richness of the data. It also reserves the opportunity to discover some unexpected information. From this perspective, qualitative approaches could be a better choice for data collection.

This is particularly relevant to this research, which tries to understand policy processes within the context of certain institutions. As context is important, this suggests the suitability of using qualitative case studies as part of the research. Meanwhile, since policy processes are the main focus, interviews with key participants were an appropriate way to conduct this research. Thus, based on the objectives of this research, a qualitative research method was the most appropriate research method.

In summary, as Shaw and Norton (2007) pointed out, the research design and method should fit the purpose and be justified within the context. A qualitative approach is suitable for this research since it attempts to further explore the nature of the central-local relationship and is interested in the policy process. As such, it relies on rich data provided by interview respondents and textual sources to provide an insight of the practical operation of the central-local relationship and how these relations affect healthcare policy processes.