Qualitative v/s. Quantitative Research- A Summarized Review

Criminological research is a subjective mission supported by the researcher's normative ideas, which help them to formulate a hypothesis or become interested in an issue.

Qualitative research studies focus on differences in quality, rather than differences in quantity. Results are expressed in words or pictures rather than numbers. Qualitative studies usually have fewer participants than quantitative studies because the depth of the data collection does not allow for large numbers of participants. However, qualitative data do provide a depth and richness not possible with quantitative data. Although there are fewer participants, the researchers generally know more details about each participant. Since quantitative researchers collect data on more participants, it is not possible to have the depth and breadth of knowledge about each. Here is an example of qualitative research. Peter wants to study the coming out processes of gays and lesbians in rural settings. He believes that the process can be well-represented by having participants fill out questionnaires with closed-ended (multiple choice) questions. The research will be a complex process because he intends to get information from not only gays and lesbians but from their families and friends. In a large number of participants it is not possible to explore their lives given time and financial constraints. Qualitative research may have 10-13 participants; he chooses five (5) gays and five (5) lesbians who he believes have interesting stories to tell. He conducts a series of interviews with each participant. He then asks them all to identify three family members or friends, and Peter interviews them as well. Quantitative and qualitative studies both have strengths and weaknesses. A particular strength of quantitative research is that statistical analysis allows for generalization (to some extent) to others. A goal of quantitative research is to choose a sample that closely resembles the population. Qualitative research however, does not seek to choose samples that are representative of populations. Qualitative research is aimed at gaining a deep understanding of a specific organization or event, rather than surface description of a large sample of a population. It aims to provide an explicit account of the structure, order, and broad patterns found among a group of participants. It is also called ethno-methodology or field research. It generates data about human groups in social settings. Qualitative research does not introduce treatments or manipulate variables, or impose the researcher's operational definitions of variables on the participants. Rather, it lets the meaning emerge from the participants. He derives the meaning from their responses. This kind of research allows for more flexibility. As the research progresses concepts, data collection tools and even collection methods can be adjusted. 64 Qualitative research aims at a better understanding through firsthand experience, truthful reporting, and quotations of actual conversations. It aims to understand how the participants derive meaning from their surroundings and how the meaning influences their behavior.

Marsyangdi Journal , 2020

This paper intends to compare and contrast qualitative and quantitative research in brief. Based on library sources, the paper is prepared for the Bachelor and Master level research students plus interested one. The article initiated with the concept of research and its major purposes, and then associates the general information about qualitative, quantitative and mixed method research. Finally, it illustrates the relative and discrepancy between qualitative and quantitative research with a few concluding note.

quantitative would not operate under the same condition as there would be a need for a sample group and a control group from the population

Methodological Innovations Online, 2010

We examine the concepts of quantitative research and qualitative research, and argue that this dichotomy has several dimensions which are often, erroneously, assumed to coincide. We analyse two of the important dimensions -statistical versus non-statistical, and hypothesis testing versus induction. The crude quantitative-qualitative dichotomy omits many potentially useful possibilities, such as non-statistical hypothesis testing and statistical induction. We also argue that the first dimension can be extended to include establishing deterministic laws and the consideration of fictional scenarios; and the second to include "normal science" research based on questions defined by an established paradigm. These arguments mean that the possible types of research methods are more diverse than is often assumed, and that the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative" are best avoided, although other, more specific, terms are useful. One important sense in which the term "qualitative" is used is simply to refer to the use of data which yields a deep and detailed picture of the subject matter: we suggest the use of the word "rich" to describe such data.

Qualitative research represents a systematic subjective approach used to describe life experiences and to give them meaning. The approach aims at gaining insight, explore in depth and understand the richness and complexity inherent in human behaviours (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Nkwi et al (2001) describe qualitative research as any research that uses data that do not indicate ordinal value. As such, it deals with data in form of sound, text and images instead of discrete measurable values (units of measure) representing the subject of study. This approach of research seeks to explore the meaning people construct around their world in terms of perception, feelings, experiences and other intangible characteristics of the world around the researcher or the subject of the research (Merriam, 2009).

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2013

At the level of methods, quantitative researchers criticize qualitative researchers for not performing null hypothesis significance tests. However, I review literature showing that these are invalid, and so it is not particularly meaningful to criticize a lack of performance of something that should not be performed anyhow. More generally, I suggest that there are strengths and limitations to quantitative and qualitative methods. The more interesting question pertains to goals, and quantitative and qualitative researchers differ there, too. I briefly mention some limitations of the usual quantitative goal, which is to find causal mechanisms. But a typical qualitative goal of describing personal or subjective experience also has limitations. Finally, I compare both quantitative and qualitative social science research to physics and show that each has similarities and differences. There is much for quantitative and qualitative social science researchers to gain, not only by considering each other's methods and goals carefully but also by going outside social science and considering the accomplishments in nonsocial sciences.