REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.2. Research Methodology
4.2.2. Qualitative and Quantitative approaches
The type of research used in an investigation is mostly determined by the research topic field and nature. However, qualitative and quantitative methods may be combined and the analysis may be based on both methods in an effort to enrich the outcomes and facilitate the data analysis and description.
According to Silverman and Marvasti (2008) qualitative research appears to be less flexible in terms of data processing and analysis compared to quantitative research. The main idea is that qualitative research allows the respondent to describe his thoughts since “open-ended” questions mainly used in this kind of research are more flexible compared to “always, never, sometimes”, “yes/no”, “many times, often, never” that are offered as possible answers to the quantitative kind of research.
According to many researchers a main weakness of qualitative research is that the conclusions drawn from the analysis are difficult to be appraised in terms of validity and reliability (Anfara, 2008). In a same manner Berg (2001) describes that quantitative methods are thought to be more accurate comparing to qualitative methods mainly because numbers are thought to be more precise comparing to “the meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors symbols and descriptions of things” (Berg 2001) that qualitative research contains.
In addition as Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009) point out, quantitative research is more about numbers and percentages about a case under study whereas qualitative research produces descriptions about a case under study. Maybe that is the main reason that according to Berg (2001) quantitative research is “more quickly accomplished” than qualitative research.
On the other hand as shown by Gray (2004) the sample size in qualitative research is relative small compared with the quantitative type of research where a large sample size is needed. In addition as Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009) state that despite the small sample size (e.g. 20 to 35 participants) and the lack of randomness in qualitative methods, a better understanding of the population under study is provided since “techniques such as interviews and focus groups allow the research participants to give very detailed and specific answers”.
Chapter 4 – Research Methodology
120 An illustrated comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative approaches to research is shown in Table 4.1, where Figure 4.1 presents the Qualitative Approach and Figure 4.2 presents the Quantitative Approach. The main differences, the advantages and the disadvantages of the two methods are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1. Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research
Figure 4.1. Qualitative Approach – The main purpose of it is to describe a given situation. In addition, it is mostly focused on large population while it tends to be adequate and realistic. The method used is an inductive analysis.
Qualitative
Purpose
= Description
Criteria for truth
= Adequate and realistic
Methods
= Inductive
analysis Focus
= Generalize to
large population
121 Figure 4.2. Quantitative Approach – The main purpose of it is to predict. It is mainly focused on people and groups while it uses statistics, replication and cumulative findings. The method used is a deductive analysis.
Adopted from: Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009), p.167
As Norum (2008) points out a main characteristic of qualitative research is its purpose to provide working understandings. At the same time while quantitative researchers can use several statistical tools (means, statistical tests etc) to describe or support particular findings, qualitative researchers need to use their analytical skills and evaluate the strengths of their findings (Vanderstoep and Johnston, 2009).
Quantitative Purpose
= Prediction
Criteria for truth
= Statistics, replication and
cumulative findings
Methods
= Deductive
analysis Focus
=
Silenced people and groups
Chapter 4 – Research Methodology
122 4.2.3. Case Study approach: Advantages and Disadvantages
Before exploring the Case Study concept it is useful to provide a definition in order to understand the nature of the method. According to Blatter (2008):
“A case study is a research approach in which one or a few instances of a phenomenon are studied in depth.”
Berg (2001) argues that a common use of case studies is to act as a bridge between theoretical studies and practice. As Lundy (2008) describes this type of research provides an in-depth examination of a specific case (that could be a person, a group or an institution) or a phenomenon, seeking to provide further details and better understanding of the issue.
Here it is important to mention when a case study is used. As Gray (2004) states:
“The case study method is ideal when a ‘how’ or ‘why’
question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the researcher has no control.”
In a same manner, Yin (2004) supports that:
Table 4.2. Quantitative versus Qualitative Research
Characteristic Quantitative Research Qualitative Research
Type of data Phenomena are described numerically
Phenomena are described in a narrative fashion
Analysis Descriptive and inferential statistics
Identification of major themes
Scope of inquiry Specific questions or
hypotheses Broad, thematic concerns
Primary advantage
Large sample, statistical validity, accurately reflects the
population
Rich, in-depth, narrative description of sample
Primary disadvantage
Superficial understanding of participants’ thoughts and feelings
Small sample, not generalizable to the population at large
Adopted from: Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009), p.7
123
“The case study method is best applied when research addresses descriptive or explanatory questions and aims to produce a first-hand understanding of people and events.”
Vanderstoep and Johnston (2009) describe different types of case studies summarized as follows:
• Single case study which is based on the investigation of a single case.
• Collective case study which is based on a comparison of multiple related cases.
Furthermore, if a case study is focused:
• On one person – is called “biographical case study”.
• On one event – is called “critical incident study”.
An important characteristic of case study research is that it can be easily used to provide the ground for comparative analysis (Mills, 2008).
According to Yin (2003) there are main objections concerning the case study method.
The three main problems pointed out by Yin (2003) are summarized below:
• Lack of rigour. Yin (2003) describes that case study strategy can become sloppy and follow non-systematic procedures.
• Scientific generalization can be difficult succeeded from the analysis of a single case or a single experiment.
• Case studies take too long to be completed.
However case studies have important advantages that make them strong tools when conducting an investigation. Blatter (2008) describes a number of advantages of the specific strategy. He describes that case studies consisted the major source of theoretical innovation. Furthermore, this type of research is usually characterized by descriptive goals although it implements causal questions as well.
In addition, Blatter adds that the strategy provides an in-depth analysis and empirical completeness. Finally, the method can provide construct and internal validity advantages. This is because “case studies can use more and more diverse indicators for representing a theoretical concept and for securing the internal validity of causal inferences and/or theoretical interpretations for these cases.” Blatter (2008, p.69)
Another concept that needs to be specially considered and described is the research paradigm. In general, as described by Kuhn (1970) cited in Bates, (1999) a
Chapter 4 – Research Methodology
124 field’s paradigm: “…consists of the core body of theory and methodology of a field, along with an associated world view regarding the phenomena of interest to the field”. (p.1043)
Cibangu (2010) describes paradigm as a philosophy; a set of aspects, viewpoints, experiences and perspectives used to confirm and certify a methodology for a given investigation. It should be noted that research paradigm is additionally used to determine research aims and priorities.