CHAPTER 4.................................................................................................................................................... 58
4.2 The philosophical underpinnings of the qualitative and quantitative research methods
The philosophies underpinning the qualitative and quantitative research methods have been extensively documented in most social science research books and journals. The two terms, quantitative and qualitative are popularly used to describe two different worldviews or paradigms of research. However, the major difference between the two paradigms is not necessarily the type of data collected, but their foundational assumptions, the givens that are assumed to be true (Willis, Nilakanta &
Jost, 2007). In essence, the understanding and choice of a paradigm sets the tone for the researcher to subsequently make appropriate choices regarding the methodology, methods, literature or research design (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006).
The carefully selected research method guides the research toward the intended
aims and helps ensure that its products are useful and well received (Starks &
Trinidad, 2007). The quantitative paradigm is located in the positivist tradition (Cohen
& Crabtree, 2006; Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002), whilst the qualitative paradigm is located in the interpretivist tradition (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Both the positivist and interpretivist traditions represent different ways of how researchers conceive reality, and how they subsequently go about studying it.
4.2.1 Positivism
Positivism or empirical-analytical paradigm as a philosophy holds that there is an objective reality that can be studied scientifically (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). What this essentially means is that data (reality) is something that exist, is (already) there, and the task of the researcher is to gather and systematise the data (Alvesson &
Sköldberg, 2009). Such a reality can only be studied or empirically verified through deductive reasoning, combined with observation and experimental methods (Fossey et al., 2002). In the process of empirically verifying what is claimed to exist, the researcher should be detached from the phenomenon being investigated or remain objective, so as to make the product of the research value-free (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). Therefore, the aim of quantitative research is to ―test a theory or describe an experience through observation and measurement in order to predict and control forces that surround us‘‘ (O‘Leary, 2004, p. 5). Data gathering tools are usually in the form of experiments, quasi-experiments (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006), inflexible or closed-ended surveys and questionnaires (Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest &
Namey, 2005).
4.2.2 Interpretivisim
In contrast, the interpretivist or constructivist tradition sees reality as being socially constructed (Mertens, 2005). Unlike the positivist researcher the interpretivist researcher has the intention of gaining insight into how participants construct reality or as Creswell (as cited in Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006) suggest, the interpretivist researcher seeks to understand the ‗world of human experience‘. It is in this regard that Fossey and colleagues (2002, pp. 719-720) mention that the two research
paradigms (interpretive & critical paradigms) that inform qualitative research methodologies place an emphasis on seeking an understanding of the meanings of human actions and experiences, and for generating accounts of their meaning from the viewpoints of those involved. Amongst others, this is one reason that the interpretivist tradition became prominent among the social science researchers who were dissatisfied with positivism‘s disregard of the influence of the context of delivery, the researcher and participants when reality is constructed (Keat, 1971).
Lincoln and Guba (as cited in Higgs et al., 2009) put forth five major assumptions concerning the construction and nature of knowledge governing the qualitative research, each of which is antithetical to the empirico-analytical paradigm; that is the qualitative paradigm assumes that:
There are multiple constructed realities (that is, different people have different perceptions of reality through their attribution of meaning to events, meaning being part of the event, not separate from it)
The process of inquiry changes both the investigator and the
subject/participant (that is, these players are interdependent, in contrast to the independence ascribed to the research and the researcher in quantitative research)
Knowledge is both context and time dependent. Whereas quantitative research searches for generalizations and universal truths, qualitative research searches for a deeper understanding of the particular (Domholdt, 1993)
It is more useful to describe and interpret events than control them (as in quantitative research) to establish cause and effect
Inquiry is ‗‗value bound‘‘, values appear, for instance, in how questions are asked and how results are interpreted
These assumptions highlight that the qualitative research methods enable researchers to delve into questions of meaning, examine institutional and social practices and processes, identify barriers and facilitators to change, and discover the reasons for success or failure of interventions (Starks, 2007). It is for this reason and the five major assumptions put forth by Lincoln and Guba that the researcher felt the
need to adopt an interpretivist/constructivist approach when conducting the present study. Furthermore, qualitative research employs epistemologies such as ethnographic approaches, phenomenological approaches, grounded theory, and discourse analysis amongst others (Starks, 2007). While qualitative data-gathering tools are usually in the form of in-depth interviews, participant observations, document reviews and focus groups (Mack et al., 2005; Silverman, 2000).
4.2.3 Rationale for the choice of a qualitative approach
In the previous two sections, the researcher laid down the basic propositions of the positivist and interpretivist philosophies. It is, therefore, justifiable when contrasting the two philosophies that the objectives of this study are in line with the interpretivist approach. Central to this study was to explore into the lived experiences of participants as they relate to bereavement, grief and the performed mourning rituals in a particular cultural setting. Through the interpretivist tradition the researcher was able to gain an in-depth understanding of participants‘ lived experiences or as Creswell (1998) suggests, to gain insight of the world of human experience.
Furthermore, the literature presented in the literature review chapter suggests that the conceptualization of bereavement, grief and mourning as human experiences are relative to cultural contexts. More so, because bereavement, grief and mourning are shaped by people‘s belief systems and cultural practices (Breen & O‘Connor, 2007;
Rando, 1993; Eyetsemitan, 2002; Laurie & Neimeyer, 2008; Radzilani, 2010).
Inherent in this notion is that the conception of bereavement is varied across the many cultural groups existing today. Therefore, this supports Lincoln and Guba‘s (1985) five major assumptions about the qualitative paradigm; that is, there are multiple constructed realities, knowledge is both context and time dependent. Hence, the researcher employed the qualitative paradigm to explore into this area of bereavement in a new context which previous studies have not covered. On the one hand the researcher by having contrasted the foundational propositions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms did so without oblivion to the recent developments and advocacy for the abandonment of the dichotomy debate and a move towards the mixed methods approach (Kelle, 2006; Mckenzie & Knipe, 2006;
Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). The researcher‘s intention was not to perpetuate the dichotomy debate, but rather, to outlay the two approaches‘ philosophical propositions and to lend support to the chosen study design (i.e. phenomenology).