In this section, I will present an overview of the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms as a basis for subsequent discussion into their suitability for simulation based research. There are a number of other major research paradigms used in education research such as the critical theory approach, though they are not aligned with the aims of this thesis and therefore will not be discussed (Chapter 1, Cohen et al., 2007).
3.2.1 The Quantitative Paradigm
The quantitative research approach is based on the positivistic paradigm. Positivism is derived from the ontological position of realism - that truth and reality are singular (Feilzer, 2010). In this respect, reality is absolute and exists independently from human perception (Sale et al., 2002). In simple terms an object, for example an apple is always an apple regardless of the observer. From this perspective, research, inquiry and the search for the truth requires objectivity, where the investigator aims to study a given phenomena without influencing or being influenced by it (Schrag, 1992). This positivistic philosophy is the basis of much of the research in the natural and biomedical sciences (Tavakol, 2009). Methods and techniques employed for this approach to inquiry include control, randomisation, blinding, and highly structured protocols, to minimise biases of observation and other
confounding factors. The purpose of this methodological approach is to find generalisable truths and “laws” about a phenomena (Tavakol, 2009).
Quantitative research is aims to assess the relationship between cause and effect through restricting confounding variables. Quantitative research also typically requires large samples to achieve sufficient statistical power such that research findings can be generalisable. The quantifiable data generated therefore is often perceived to have higher credibility
particularly with policy makers (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Quantitative research however, due to its nature, often does not take into account local contextual factors. As an underlying key principle of quantitative research is to remove confounding variables, context in which phenomena are often seen as “white noise”. Yet, the context in which an effect occurs is arguably context dependant, and as researchers may miss out on important phenomena. From a practical prospect, knowledge generated may also be too abstract for direct application to specific situations, context and individuals. A classic example of where the lack of consideration of context yielded questionable findings and conclusions is in the initial studies measuring the intelligent quotient (IQ) of persons of different race and ethnicity (Marks, 2010). In these studies, IQ was considered to be an absolute measure of intelligence, though it is now widely acknowledged that it needs to be interpreted in like of a host of factors including social background, country of origin and so forth.
The lack of consideration of context can therefore lead to a commonly encountered situation of a theory-practice or policy-practice gap, whereby the generalizable theories derived from quantitative research do not translate into messy world of real practice (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 19) . A final criticism that has been suggested is that as quantitative research aims to test hypotheses, it is at risk of confirmation bias (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). By this I mean research becomes a means to prove or disprove what one already suspects as opposed to finding out the “truth”. This can manifest itself in a number of ways, first in terms of conducting the research itself in terms of study protocol, but also in terms of interpretation of results. As stated earlier in Chapter 2 in the systematic review, whilst a
number of the studies demonstrated mixed outcomes, some with “negative” outcomes, overall, the studies were concluded “positively” in favour of the use of PFHS.
3.2.2 The Qualitative Paradigm
The qualitative approach to inquiry is derived from the interpretivistic and constructivist paradigms (Schwandt, 1994). From an ontological perspective, this paradigm is based on the assumption that there are multiple realities and truths based on an individual’s construction of reality (Morgan and Smircich, 1980). As reality is socially constructed, it is not fixed or finite. Reality therefore cannot exist without participants and researchers and can only exist through ones’ perception. Methodological approaches employed within this paradigm aim to elicit truths about a phenomena through the lens of an observer and or participant. As such, techniques such as interviews and focus groups, which seek to obtain participants’ perspective, and ethnography where phenomena are understood through the observers’ perspective, are utilised. At the same time, study samples do not necessarily represent large populations. Instead, small focused sampling is used to provide more depth and richness to inquiry.
There are a number of key strengths to qualitative research. First, it allows researchers draw on their own personal experiences of phenomena as well as those of participants. As such, phenomena can be interpreted through an individuals construct and understanding of the world. Data is also collected in a naturalistic setting without the strict methods of reducing variables as in quantitative research (Black, 1994). Therefore it allows inquiry of
phenomenon in its usual context. This is particularly useful for describing and understanding complex phenomena. Finally qualitative research is usually dynamic, therefore allowing researchers to conduct more in-depth research through modifying their angle of inquiry as they generate new findings.
There are however also a number of limitations to qualitative research. Due to the lack of control for variables and small sample size, it is difficult to make quantitative predictions and generalisations. Data collected is more easily influenced by researchers personal biases and idiosyncrasies. As such it is often considered not to be ‘hard’ evidence by policy and decision makers ((Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Both qualitative and quantitative
paradigms have benefits and limitations in educational research. In the next section, I will discuss some considerations in the research of simulation-based medical education and benefits and limitations of each approach.