Research methodologies are usually classified into qualitative and quantitative approaches under whose broad umbrellas fall a plethora of research methods. There is a long-standing debate in the academia on the merits and demerits of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Qualitative research is an approach that systematically explores attitudes, behaviors and experiences regarding various social and political phenomena (Neuman, 2006).
It generates an in-depth and detailed, non-numerical opinion or presentation of patterns between two or more variables or a social phenomenon under investigation (Bernard, 2000:
417). Speckler et al (1992: 4) point out that the chief purpose of qualitative research is not to answer empirical questions but to illuminate various viewpoints on important issues.
79
Quantitative research on the other hand, reduces a social phenomenon or process to numerical data for ease of interpretation. It is usually conducted through surveys or structured and close-ended interviews and correlational, cross-sectional, cluster or factor analysis (Bernard, 2000: 418). It is mostly based on statistical information and is suited for measuring the strength of a relationship between two or more variables to generate a generalizable theory (Dawson, 2007: 16). Scholars use quantitative techniques to find out how much one variable affects change in another variable, to establish the cause and effect relationship or lack thereof.
Scholars have divided opinions about the differences between these methodologies with some being sympathetic to the qualitative paradigm while others favour the quantitative approach.
This stand-off has seen the two camps taking turns to criticize and question the validity of the other approach while praising the qualities of the approach they support. As Steckler et al (1992: 4) argues, the proponents of the two paradigms argue that these paradigms are too different that any attempt to integrate them destroys the epistemological foundations of each.
The conflict has been best explained thus:
When you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it numbers, your knowledge is of meagre and unsatisfactory kind (Lord Kelvin).
When you can measure it, when you can express it numbers, your knowledge is still of meagre and unsatisfactory kind (Jacob Viner) (Sayer, 1992: 175).
Dawson (2007: 16) points out that the debate between the two camps has revolved around the issue of which is the best and more scientific methodology. This concerns the ability of the approaches to produce credible and reliable research outcomes. Steckler et al (1992) argue that these differences originate from fundamental philosophical, metaphysical and ethical differences which will be difficult to disentangle and reconcile. The conflict emanates from the assumption that these two paradigms of research and their accompanying tools or techniques are incompatible and cannot be used together. However, over the years, there has been an emergency of a more moderate camp making efforts to find common ground between these two approaches. Most scholars (Dawson, 2007; Steckler et al, 1992; Bernard, 2000) counsel peace and reconciliation between the two paradigms as a pragmatic and realistic goal
The assumed conflict between qualitative and quantitative must be abandoned in favor of the view that these terms merely represent different stages of refinement and objectivity in our technique of description. Even in the work of the most statistically minded, qualitative analysis will keep its place. In the thinking of competent workers, the two types of analysis
80
will cooperate with and complement each other peacefully in economics as they do in chemistry (Lundberg, 1946: 23-24).
The methodology a researcher chooses influences and shapes data collection and data analysis techniques, and therefore affects the quality of the research output (Walker, 1995:
149). This study is guided by the view that the two research paradigms are inexplicably intertwined and therefore adopts an approach that incorporates important elements of both qualitative and quantitative paradigms. Due to the nature of the research though, the study will be predominantly, though not exclusively, be based on the quantitative methods and techniques. The nature of the variables being investigated in this study lends themselves neatly to a quantitative analysis. The electoral system, which is the independent variable, unlike other social or political phenomena, is a stable institutional feature whose various components can be calibrated and their effects measured. The stability of the electoral system, moreover, also makes it a good deal generalizable to the wider South African context. Electoral turnout on the one hand, largely because it is recorded in numbers, is perhaps the most amenable to measurement of all the political phenomena (Kavanagh, 1983).
However, while the different components of the electoral system are relatively clear-cut and fairly easy to measure, there are also other qualitative aspects of the electoral system that do affect turnout but are not as readily measurable. Kersting (2006: 136) identifies such aspects as representation, simplicity, transparency, concentration and participation as qualities of an electoral system that may have a significant bearing on electoral turnout. For example, a simple electoral system will be easy for the electorate and the parties alike to grasp, and therefore enable them to have a clear view of what and how they stand to gain by participating in the elections. Valuable insight on the relationship between electoral systems and turnout can be gained from a detailed discussion of these aspects. It is these dimensions that necessitated the incorporation of qualitative methods of inquiry in order to offer to fully capture the dynamics of the relationship between electoral rules and electoral turnout.
Quantitative techniques are more effective in ascertaining the extent to which the various components of the electoral system mentioned in this study affect variations in turnout in the electoral districts of KZN. Moreover, Steckler et al (1992: 2) argue that the high degree of reliability of quantitative techniques makes the results of the research generalizable to a wider context. Qualitative techniques on the other hand, would be more effective complimenting the strengths and compensating for the shortcomings of the quantitative methods and thus making the research model more robust. Qualitative techniques will help in discussing the
81
possible ways in which such aspects of the electoral system as the degree of representativeness, transparency, fairness among others may shape turnout. The decision to utilize methods and techniques of both approaches so as to make use of those which may help yield a well-rounded and balanced analysis of how electoral rules influence turnout trends in the local elections.