Ilustración desde arriba, o cómo se construye una élite

Saunders et al., (2012) expressed that research under business and management could be commonly classified as either qualitative or quantitative research or both for the same investigation depending on the purpose of the study.

5.9.1 Qualitative research

In describing qualitative research methods, Hiatt (1986) explains that it stresses on discoveries and understanding the experiences, perspectives and thoughts of research participants. It explores meaning, purpose or reality. Denzin & Lincoln (2003, p.3) also stated that

‘‘Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them’’

By a naturalistic approach, qualitative research seeks to appreciate phenomena in context- specific settings, such as "real world setting [where] the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest" (Patton, 2000, p. 39). Qualitative research, broadly defined, means "any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 17). Its findings are arrived at from real-world settings where the "phenomenon of interest unfold naturally" (Patton, 2000, p. 21). Unlike quantitative research methods, which seek causal determination, prediction, and generalization of findings, qualitative research on the other hand seek illumination, understanding, and extrapolation to similar situations (Hoepfl, 1997).

5.9.2 Quantitative research

Qualitative research on the contrary argues that the methods used attempt to maximize objectivity, replicability and generalizability of findings and are characteristically interested with predictions (Guba and Lincoln, 1998). Integral to this approach, a researcher is expected to set aside all experiences, perceptions and biases to ensure objectivity in the conduct of the study with its final conclusions. Trochim & Land (1982, p.1) explicitly state that;

‘‘A quantitative research method is the glue that holds the research project together. A design is used to structure the research, to show how all of the major parts of the research project—the samples or groups, measures, treatments or programs, and methods of assignment—work together to try to address the central research questions’’

Quantitative researchers deploy experimental methods and quantitative measures to test hypothetical generalizations (Hoepfl, 1997). Moreover, they emphasize on the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998). By utilizing quantitative research methods in explaining social problems, Bogdan and Biklen (1998) note:

‘Charts and graphs illustrate the results of the research, and commentators employ words such as ‘variables’, ‘populations’ and ‘result’ as part of their daily vocabulary...even if we do not always know just what all of the terms mean...[but]

we know that this is part of the process of doing research. Research, then as it comes to be known publicly, is a synonym for quantitative research’ (p. 4)

Quantitative research allows the researcher to get used to the problem or concept to be studied, and perhaps generate hypotheses to be tested. In this paradigm; (i) the emphasis is on facts and causes of behaviour (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998), (ii) information are recorded in numbers that can be quantified and summarized, (iii) the mathematical process is the norm for analysing the numeric data and (iv) the final result is expressed in statistical terminologies (Neuman, 2003).

5.9.3 Comparison between qualitative and quantitative research

In order to select the appropriate research methods for this research work, the argument of Corbetta (2003) was considered in the need for an effective comparison between these two approaches before choosing the most suitable. She proposed four distinct areas to consider for an effective comparison between qualitative and quantitative research methods. These are:

Theory-Research relationship- Qualitative research is mostly approached from the induction viewpoint, where theories emerge from observation unto a successful investigation of a research study. Conversely, quantitative research broadly takes shape from the deductive approach, where a theory initiates the study being tested (theory proceeds observation). As Chisnall (2011) puts it, quantitative research is most often linked to the positivist paradigm whiles Hughes (2006) also argues that qualitative research belongs to the Interpretivist paradigm since it addresses how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced and produced. Punch (2008, p.328) explained that ‘‘the only research technique that is capable of identifying and handling complex interplay of emotions and attitude of people in a communal settings is the qualitative technique’’. More so, Corbetta (2003) opines that qualitative research is mostly open and interactive in nature whereby the research has the empathetic identification with the subject’s standpoint. The position of Punch (2008) is that quantitative research is mostly structured, logical and developed in sequential phases with the researcher detached from what is being studied.

Physical Data collection- Quantitative research methods generally involves structured and closed questions, often presented as surveys or questionnaires (Collis & Hussey, 2014), whereas qualitative research methods appear unstructured and open which gets constructed during the course of the research investigation. According to Bryman (2014), techniques used in quantitative research includes surveys which are used to collate the perceptions of the larger sample group, whiles techniques such as interviews are used to collate sampling opinions of a focus group in the qualitative research study. Under quantitative research investigations, data collection generally involves a statistically representative sample as compared to qualitative research, which uses a single case without any statistical representation.

Data Analysis- Data analysis of a research project according to Oates (2014) involves

summarizing the mass of data collected and presenting the resultant conclusions drawn in a way that communicates the most important features. Bazeley & Jackson (2014) expands this further under quantitative research analysis as involving summarizing the frequencies of variables, differences between variables, and statistical tests designed to estimate the statistical significance of the results (i.e. the probability that they did not occur by chance). All this is done basically by counting how often something appears in the data by comparing a measurement with others. At the end of the analysis, not only do we have a mass of results but we also have what we might call “the big picture”: the major findings (Bryman & Bell, 2014). Conversely, a qualitative research data analysis technique seeks to understand the subjects under study to discover the bigger picture rather than just statistical analysis. Qualitative research data are usually designed and used to describe a phenomenon and to articulate what it means in order to understand (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2014).

Production of results- So far, it will be unsurprising to expect generalization of results

by the facts obtained in a quantitative study showing patterns and correlations in the form of tables and graphs (Corbetta, 2014). Nonetheless, qualitative research is mostly more specific as it focuses on a particular case. Excerpts and transcripts of interviews and narratives are often presented together with classifications and typologies produced as a result (Blaike, 2014).

5.9.4 Mixed method approach selected for this studies

Despite its significance, conducting mixed research methods are not easy as it requires lots of time and resources in collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data (Saunders et al., 2014). Research methods become complicated and so the researcher must be guided to sort out these diverse procedures. Further, investigators are often trained in just one form of inquiry (quantitative or qualitative) but the mixed method requires that they know both forms.

However, due to the type of research questions of this study, the mixed method approach was adopted since values that might be gained will outweigh the potential complexity to this approach. Bryman (2014) stated that ‘‘mixed methods research means adopting a research strategy employing more than one type of research method. The methods may be a mix or qualitative and quantitative methods, a mix of quantitative methods or a mix of qualitative methods’’. This means that the researcher under this investigation employed both the qualitative and quantitative approach. The following are some benefits that researcher would gain by employing both methods.

 Mixed methods research provided the researcher a more comprehensive evidence for studying the research problem than any of both quantitative and qualitative research alone. The researcher was granted the use of all the tools of data collection available rather than being constrained to the types of data collection typically associated with qualitative research or quantitative research. In the nutshell, mixed methods research helped the researcher to answer questions that qualitative or quantitative approaches standing alone will not be able to answer.

 Mixed methods encouraged the researcher to collaborate, defying the sometimes- adversarial relationship that exists between quantitative and qualitative researchers. Mixed methods research encouraged the researcher to use multiple worldviews or paradigms rather than the usual association to certain school of thoughts by quantitative and qualitative researchers. It accepts paradigms that try to encompass all of quantitative and qualitative studies such as pragmatism, or using multiple paradigms in research

 Mixed methods research is “practical” in the sense that the researcher was free to use all methods possible to address a research problem and also because individuals are permitted to solve problems using both numbers and words, try to combine inductive and deductive ideas, and they (e.g., therapists) employ skills in observing people as well as recording behaviour. It comes across as natural then for individuals to employ mixed methods research as the preferred means of understanding the world.