The scope and nature of this study mean that to address the major research question a combination of research approaches was needed. The study adopted both qualitative and quantitative approaches, drawing on the strengths of each to complement the other. The dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative gives an impression that the former is about “fact based on numbers” and the latter on a
“kind of facts” based on human experience (Cohen, 1988). From a meaning making perspective, Lê, Lê and Short (2009) suggest that qualitative research deals with meaning as it works with non-numerical data, whereas quantitative research deals with data which is fundamentally numerical.
Sometimes, “both [quantitative and qualitative approaches] are utilised and data from each are collected and analysed in the same study” (Charles, 1998, p. 30). According to Patton (1990), “one important way to strengthen a study design is through triangulation, or the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomena or programs” (p. 187). This means using both quantitative and qualitative methods. O’Leary (2010) coincides with this view that:
Mixed approaches can help you capitalise on the best of both traditions and overcome many of their shortcomings; allow for the use of both inductive and deductive reasoning; build a broader picture by adding depth and insights to ‘number’ through inclusion of dialogue, narratives, and pictures; add precision to ‘words’ through inclusion of numbers tallying, and statistics (which can make results more generalizable); allow you to develop research protocols in stages; offer more than one way to looking at a situation; facilitate capturing varied perspectives; and allow for triangulation. (pp. 127-128)
However, quantitative and qualitative methods may appear to be in opposition. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) describe the distinction as follows:
The word qualitative implies an emphasis on the qualities of entities and on processes and meanings that are not
experimentally examined or measured (if measured at all) in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency …. In contrast, quantitative studies emphasise the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes. (p. 8)
Additionally, Patton (1990) describes the particular role of measurement in ways which characterise particular needs and uses:
Quantitative measures are easily aggregated for analysis; quantitative data are systematic, standardised, and easily
presented in a short space. By contrast, the qualitative findings are longer, more detailed, and variable in content; analysis is difficult because responses are neither systematic nor standardised. (p. 24) Further, Hatch (2002) states that all qualitative research is characterised by an emphasis on inductive rather than deductive information processing. This is important because inductive processing occurs when researchers draw a theory from a situation they perceive, whereas in deductive information processing, theory guides the development of hypotheses to be tested. Another major
difference between the two, according to Bouma (2000, p. 35), is that “qualitative research is done to find out what is going on in a situation.” So the goal of the research may be descriptive rather than explanatory. This type of research can often be guided by a general objective, rather than a specific hypothesis. As
Freebody (2003) asserts, qualitative research can suggest and generate hypotheses, while quantitative approaches can test hypotheses and, thereby, offer researchers the confidence that comes from rigorous experimental design, appropriate testing and statistical probability. Qualitative research approaches have traditionally been favoured when the main research objective is to improve our understanding of a phenomenon, especially when this phenomenon is complex and deeply embedded in its context.
Another major difference between qualitative and quantitative research relates to the underlying assumptions about the role of the researcher. In quantitative research, the researcher is ideally an objective observer, who neither participates in nor influences what is being studied. Charles (1998) states that “investigators try to keep themselves apart from participants. They fear that their involvement, or even their presence, might contaminate the study by causing participants to behave differently than they otherwise would” (p. 174). A different approach is usually taken in qualitative research, as it is thought that the researcher can learn the most by participating and/or being immersed in the situation or context being studied. According to Charles (1998) in qualitative research, “investigators are keenly interested in contexts, values, attitudes, emotions, and social realities
which affect human interaction. Additionally, in order to obtain rich data,
investigators often involve themselves closely with those they are observing” (p. 174). The underlying assumptions of each methodology guides and sequences the types of data collection methods employed. One way of expressing this is to say that in qualitative research “the researcher is more interactive with the data- generating process than in quantitative research” (Bouma, 2000, p. 176).
However, it is important for researchers to realise that qualitative and quantitative methods can be used in conjunction with each other in order to generate more effective and powerful results from the research. Strauss and Corbin (1998a, p. 34) assert that, “although most researchers tend to use qualitative and quantitative methods as supplementary or complementary forms, there should be a true interplay between the two.” In other words, researchers should find the most effective ways to incorporate elements of both approaches, to ensure that their studies are as rigorous and thorough as possible. According to Bouma (2000, p. 174), “it should be clear that the difference between qualitative and quantitative research is not one of better or worse but rather one of appropriateness to the question asked.”
In summary, both qualitative and quantitative research methods can provide valuable contributions to knowledge, which are absolutely essential to the research process in social science (Bouma, 2000). Methods should be chosen depending on which is more likely to provide a comprehensive and clear answer that is more descriptive of reality, in answering the research question. Researchers must be as objective as possible. They should not contaminate data collection and data analysis with personal biases and prejudice (Cohen, 1988).