Skip Nav

Is Gender a qualitative or quantitative data?

Choose a video to embed

❶Quantitative research usually begins with pre-specified objectives focused on testing preconceived outcomes.




Controlled, objective testing and experimentation ultimately supports or rejects your hypotheses. Each step is standardized to reduce bias when collecting and analyzing data. A big advantage of this approach is that the results are valid, reliable and generalizable to a larger population. Quantitative research is advantageous for studies that involve numbers, such as measuring achievement gaps between different groups of students or assessing the effectiveness of a new blood pressure medication.

While quantitative research methods work well in the laboratory under tightly controlled conditions, measuring phenomena like human behavior in natural settings is trickier.

Survey instruments are vulnerable to errors such as mistakes in measurement and flawed sampling techniques. Another disadvantage is that quantitative research involves numbers, but some topics are too difficult to quantify in numbers.

For example, constructing an effective survey with closed-ended questions about how people fall in love would be difficult. Qualitative research is often used to conduct social and behavioral studies because human interactions are more complex than molecular reactions in a beaker. Subjectivity, nonrandom sampling and small sample size distinguishes qualitative research from quantitative research. A big advantage of qualitative research is the ability to deeply probe and obtain rich descriptive data about social phenomena through structured interviews, cultural immersion, case studies and observation, for instance.

Examples include ethnography, narratives and grounded theory. Qualitative studies often take more time to complete due to the pain staking nature of gathering and analyzing field notes, transcribing interviews, identifying themes and studying photographs, for instance.

Studies are not easily replicable or generalizable to the general population. A summary of the kinds of distinctions often made concerning the use and value of both methods is provided in Table 1.

The nature of the general theoretical debate, then, is characterized by fundamentally different understandings or beliefs about scientific research, in particular, and the world, in general. Nonetheless, the arguments continue to focus on methodological aspects. Clarifying Differences and Acknowledging Similarities. The dichotomy of quantitative, deductive analysis under standardized, objective conditions versus qualitative, inductive inquiry aimed at understanding phenomena in uncontrolled, natural contexts remains a barrier between researchers from different analytical disciplines, 7 particularly those studying the etiology and consequences of disease.

Chronic diseases, by their very nature, require the complementary use of qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to quantify the effectiveness of treatments and qualify the illness experience as it progresses over time. Instead of either ignoring or defending a particular research paradigm, it is possible and more instructive to see qualitative and quantitative methods as part of a continuum of research techniques, all of which are appropriate depending on the research objective.

For example, Shaffir and Stebbins have modeled this continuum in a way that challenges the notion that qualitative approaches are solely exploratory and inductive, while quantitative methods are only explanatory and deductive. Both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used appropriately with any research paradigm. Questions of method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or world view that guides the investigator.

For example, grounded theory and case study are different approaches than those of ethnography or phenomenology, and yet all four approaches are essentially qualitative.

The same sort of distinctions apply to quantitative approaches: There is a need to recognize that both methodological schools have an equally respectable place in health and health care research; quantitative and qualitative techniques can and should co-exist as potential tools of the research trade. Instead of worrying about justifying the less highly regarded method which appears to shift over time and across disciplines in any case , efforts should focus on understanding why and when to use one or the other method, or both.

The concept of capturing the inter-relatedness, rather than the differences, of qualitative and quantitative methods is beginning to receive greater attention in health research. For example, Daly et al. In fact, there is a spectrum of research that encompasses both methods that, in turn, crosses these traditional demarcations.

In short, our belief is that the broad range of questions that arise from complex health care problems can only adequately be addressed by an equally broad range of research study designs. Those who undertake evaluation and research in health care must therefore cultivate methodological flexibility. Any study design or combination of research methods selected for use should be responsive to the particular research problem or question.

For example, exploring the implementation of new health care delivery arrangements requires a mainly qualitative approach, since it is not possible to divorce the processes of change under study from the social contexts in which they occur.

On the other hand, a study designed to identify the glucose tolerance of people with diabetes versus people without the disease requires essentially quantitative analysis of differences under carefully controlled conditions. Within the discussion of what constitutes good science, there is a slow but important movement toward more collaborative use of both types of research methods in the field of health research, particularly in relation to the study of chronic diseases.

Positive suggestions for combining quantitative and qualitative approaches are emerging from some health-oriented disciplines. Sociology and nursing are fields that struggle with the divide often separating researchers who prefer one or the other technique; however, some researchers in both fields are promoting greater harmony.

For example, sociologists Strauss and Corbin 16 stated: Medical research is also beginning to include qualitative approaches more often. For example, a team of physicians and other researchers 18 used a qualitative inquiry nested within a larger clinical survey in order to better elicit patient expectations for medical care. Clearly, some developments across a continuum of health care research follow the logic of identifying what kinds of research skills and corresponding methods are responsive to the problems that require addressing within the health care field today.

The capacity to better understand and improve the ongoing support for individuals living with chronic diseases surely encompasses a number of such health and health care challenges. Combined method research approaches are particularly suited to the study of chronic disease and long-term illness. As Holman 1 comments," Conventional biomedical research has not provided decisive information about the origins or management of the most prevalent contemporary medical problems, namely, chronic illnesses.

We believe that it is through combined, sustained and complementary use of qualitative and quantitative research methods that advances in our knowledge of chronic diseases can best be attained. Once the philosophical differences different world views and practical barriers lack of knowledge or expertise to using a combined approach are recognized, they can be managed constructively, and a number of potential ways to usefully combine qualitative and quantitative techniques will emerge.

Some examples of how combined study approaches can help us better understand and treat individuals living with chronic diseases make the generic uses outlined in Table 2 more accessible and relevant.

Six possible uses of combined method approaches are described below to help promote their use within the context of future chronic disease research. The most generally accepted use of combined methods is to begin with a qualitative exploration of some little-studied problem so that measurement instruments can be developed for later quantitative research. For example, Bauman and Adair's study 26 of social support among inner-city mothers of children with chronic illnesses used qualitative interviewing to inform the construction of a questionnaire.

Persons coping with chronic conditions often rely on the effectiveness of medications to relieve or at least minimize painful, debilitating symptoms. Such is the case for individuals with heart disease who control pain from angina with prescribed medication. Such study alone, however, does not always sufficiently describe all of the side effects that may accompany this pain relief, nor can it encompass the meaning for individuals suffering from these side effects.

The addition of qualitative study can often more fully identify and explain side effects or problems of compliance with drug regimes experienced by people living with chronic heart disease.

Clearly, both kinds of evidence are critical if research is to capture the full experience of long-term chronic heart disease. Additional examples from the literature include a study by Bashir et al. The quantification of rates of chronic disease can often leave researchers with unanswered questions about why rates are different over time or by geographic region.

So, for example, when quantitative evidence points to a seemingly unexplained high prevalence of asthma in Alberta compared to other parts of Canada, qualitative analysis of the reasons for this is warranted. Qualitative techniques will tell the story behind the comparative quantification. Wainwright's study 29 of chronic liver disease employs this approach, describing how qualitative research can lead to additional quantitative and qualitative appraisal of psychological adjustment to end-stage chronic liver disease.

The exploration of qualitative aspects of living with many chronic conditions can lead to a deep understanding of how certain individuals experience living with their illnesses.

Sometimes, these descriptive data on how people live with a particular chronic condition appear inconsistent according to gender or age differences. In the context of a qualitative study, both sample size and method are inadequate to test the validity of any apparent distinctions. Only quantitative study can test these findings with sufficient and appropriate sampling. In Finkler and Correa's study 30 of patients' perceived recovery and the role of the patient-doctor relationship, statistical analysis revealed that only some components of the relationship significantly influenced treatment outcomes.

This prompted review of the qualitative data and further development of a qualitative understanding of the patient-doctor relationship. The above reason for combining methods is arguably the most prevalent in today's climate of continuing scepticism about use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in single studies. Examples could include combining the results of any studies that separately, but simultaneously, research a chronic disease. So, while one group of researchers is quantifying the efficacy of a particular treatment for breast cancer, another group may be comparing women's experiences of surviving following detection and treatment of breast cancer.

In this case, however, a combined, co-ordinated study design has not really been accomplished. Qualitative research is highly descriptive, whereasquantitative methods rely on statistics, measurements, andmathematical calculations.

What similarties in qualitative and quantitative research? Both types of research can be used when a researcher wants to learn more information about something. When a investigator researches certain areas of a discipline or sometimes from any area, one method is often found to be more comfortable for them and they will often resort to this style by default. Both types can also be considered work-intensive, merely in different capacities. Difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

The appended link outlines the several differences. Qualitative data is produced by answering "soft" questions like: Were you really tired,. Did everyone have a good time,. Do you like Heavy Metal bands. Qualitative research would then be determing what people "like", how they "feel", are they "happy" Quantitative data and research poses "definite" or "hard"questions like: How many grams of sugar did you use,.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how much pain are you in. What colour was the solution,. What was the increase in vapour pressure. Quantitative research would then be determining the average weight of teenagers, the cost of new cars in Calgary, or the miles walked by 40 year old postmen on December 12 th. Differences between qualitative and quantitative research? Qualitative research is exploratory research used to understandthings. Quantitative research is essentially an investigation usingstatistical or mathematical methods to understand things.

What are the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods? Answering "What are the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods?

Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research. Quantitative research uses deductive process as the study approach, investigates phenomena that lend themselves to precise measurement and quantification, often involving a rigorous and controlled design; it's more on objective and reductionist, most closely allied with the positivist tradition.

Qualitative research , on the other hand, which is most often associated with naturalistic inquiry with inductive study approach, investigates phenomena through the collection of rich narrative materials using a flexible research design, broad, subjective and holistic.

The researchers' expectations in quantitative research are to test and verify hypothesis and theories, and predict physical or human events; role of the person being studied is the subject, its behavior as a means to the end. While in qualitative data - researchers' expectations are to discover information, to describe human experiences, to develop concepts and theories, and to explain and interpret human behavior or events; person being studied is an active participant and its behavior is both means and end.

In addition, Data being collected in qualitative research reflects the perceptions of persons being studied in form of "words" for individual interpretation, and is collected throughout the study through unstructured interviews and observations in settings natural to person being studied with no manipulation of the environment by the researcher.

On the contrary, quantitative data is independent on perceptions of person being studied in form of "numbers" for statistical analysis, and is collected in designated time frame through structured interviews, questionnaires, observations, scales, or physiologic instruments with controlled environment and researchers manipulates the environment to control for variables.

Lastly, quantitative findings are generalized, accept or reject theoretical propositions with numerical accounts of data that are highly reliable. While qualitative findings are unique, dynamic, understands phenomena and new theory with written descriptions of findings that are highly valid.

What is the difference between qualitative research and quantitative research? Quantitative and qualitative research? What are the similarities of qualitative and quantitative research? In both cases factual observations are made in an effort to better understand some phenomenon. Quantitative research is more important than qualitative research because it results in statistical information and conclusive findings?

Qualitative versus Quantitative has been always fiercely debated in the academic field. It is really what you as the researcher think it is important. There is no right or wrong answer. Until I have taken a qualitative research class at USF I thought that quantitative research is more "scientific" than qualitative research. I thought that qualitative research should be should be done before quantitative research.

Well, nothing is sure in this world, and we don't even agree in the notion of objectivity. I was pleasantly surprised by John W.

Creswell's book about qualitative research. He also says that qualitative research allows the researcher to study deeply a problem and go beyond the numbers.. I started to like qualitative research because it is more flexible, interactive, the research design can be modified and it involves fieldwork patients should be interviewed in their natural setting.

Therefore, a qualitative research can provide a more complex answer to certain problems such as minority and race. For example, can racism be easily answered? No, it calls for a qualitative study because it may involve economical, political, and cultural and gender related problems..

I guess journalists mainly use qualitative research if they write a longer and deeper article about topics like race, unemployment, etc. I realize that numbers do not mean always the "whole" picture. I would use qualitative research methods if I want to do a deeper research, if I want to gain a deeper understanding of a problem using multiple views.

What is the researchers role in conducting qualitative research and how is this different from quantitative research? In qualitative research, the researcher is an instrument. He interacts andcollaborates with the participants, and he gathers data by himself. However, in quantitative research, the researcher is nonexistent he uses instruments to collect data and does not interact with his participants.

Why is qualitative research inferior to quantitative research? The difference comes depending on what the research intends to achieve. In demographic research, for instance, quantitative research becomes more meaningful. What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative? Qualitative research is done as an exploratory measure.

Quantitative research is done once the problem and thequestions have been better established. Quantitative researchrelies heavily on numbers and other measurable data in order touncover existing patterns. What is qualitative and quantitative? QUALitative- An observation based on your senses. QUANtitative- It is very specific using measurements and units. Compare Quantitative and Qualitative Data?


Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Mixed Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative feasible, information-rich data that can enhance traditional quantitative research approaches. II. Uses of Mixed Methods Research Designs Within this type of an outcomes study, the researcher collects and analyzes both quantitative and qualitative data. The qualitative data can be.

Privacy FAQs

Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data can improve an evaluation by ensuring that the limitations of one type of data are balanced by the strengths of another. This will ensure that understanding is improved by integrating different ways of knowing.

About Our Ads

Social Science Studies Paper Series 04 on Using both Qualitative and Quantitative Research Rajib Timalsina May In research method, there is a constant debate between scientists who support qualitative and quantitative research approach. When preparing a user research study you might want to think of combining both quantitative and qualitative data upfront. One simple way to obtain both types .

Cookie Info

both quantitative and qualitative data in the context of a single study (sensu lato Tashakkori and Teddlie ). Our objectives are to describe how and why we conducted two mixed methods research. If you’re setting up a customer-research project and wondering whether to take a quantitative or a qualitative approach, consider a third option: use both, and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by mixing the two methods.