Researchers conduct quantitative research studies to measure relationships between variables, differences between groups, or changes over time. In some cases, the research can lead to cause and effect conclusions. However, cause and effect can only be determined with the most rigorous research designs, such as experimental designs.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Researchers conduct quantitative research studies to measure relationships between variables, differences between groups, or changes over time. In some cases, the research can lead to cause and effect conclusions. However, cause and effect can only be determined with the most rigorous research designs, such as experimental designs.
The following chart best illustrates the characteristics of quantitative research and some of the potential advantages of this method.
Table 1
Quantitative Research Characteristics
Characteristics
Advantages
Data collected is numeric
Data is collected through structured instruments with clearly defined questions: polls, questionnaires, surveys, or manipulation of pre-existing data
Generalizable across groups to explain a particular phenomenon: results based on a larger sample size representative of the population
Results can be replicated
Study carefully designed before collection
Goal of the study is to create statistical models that explain observations/results
Can be measured or counted
Allows easy collection from a large sample
Can be displayed in graphs, charts, tables, and other formats that allow for better interpretation
Data collection methods can be relatively quick, depending on the type of data being collected
Data analysis is less time-consuming since it can be input into software and analysis can be done using statistical software
Statistical analysis allows for greater objectivity when reviewing results
Results can be generalized if the data is based on random samples and the sample size was sufficient
Major differences can be identified in the characteristics of a population.
Statistical relationships between specific variables and causes can be identified and analyzed.
Results are independent of the researcher.
Numerical quantitative data may be viewed as more credible and reliable, especially to policymakers, decision-makers, and administrators.
Some examples of quantitative research in technology include examining the impact of a process change on workforce productivity (change in mean scores from pre to post process change), comparing the runtime of various algorithms to determine which algorithm is most efficient (comparison of two or more independent means), or measuring the relationship between project staffing allocations and time to complete the project.
Quantitative research can be augmented or complemented with qualitative research. In some cases, qualitative research is conducted to better understand why a particular relationship exists. For example, if we implement a new process within our organization, we want to know that the outcomes we measure are a result of our new process and not something else. Gathering qualitative data can help provide more support for the efficacy of your process change, which is particularly helpful when conducting non-experimental research designs. Gathering qualitative feedback can increase the validity of your non-experimental design by triangulating the qualitative data with the quantitative outcomes of your study to provide support for cause and effect relationships.
Just like with any research, there are ethical standards to uphold when conducting quantitative research. It is imperative that a researcher fully understands and complies with these ethical standards, or their research will become invalid, and the researcher can be discredited by academic peers. Institutional Review Boards (IRB) exist in research institutions to evaluate proposed research based on the extent to which they adhere to ethical principles, guidelines, and requirements. The Belmont Report is a good source to use to determine whether you are upholding all ethical principles regarding research involving human subjects.
Assignment: Examine Technology Research and Theoretical Contributions
Instructions
For this assignment, you will locate three different doctoral dissertations from three different universities that incorporate a quantitative methodology on a technology topic and write a paper examining the quantitative nature of each study
Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and references.
References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly resources
The completed assignment should address all of the assignment requirements, exhibit evidence of concept knowledge, and demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the content presented in the course. The writing should integrate scholarly resources, reflect academic expectations and current APA standards.
Requirements: Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and references
155 Qualitative and Quantitative Research: Paradigmatic Differences Vishal Arghode, Ph.D. Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Abstract The paper defines qualitative and quantitative research. Subsequently, the two broad research fields are analyzed and compared on the basis of ontological, epistemological, and methodological differences. The underlying assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative research methods are also highlighted in the paper. I have also presented a discussion on how the fundamental beliefs and approaches of qualitative and quantitative methods influence their application. The paper intends to fulfill the need to define the two disciplines by providing a better understanding on the fundamental philosophical building blocks that guide the qualitative and quantitative research. Keywords: Qualitative research, quantitative research, ontology, epistemology, methodology, paradigm, differences Qualitative and Quantitative Research: Paradigmatic Differences Both quantitative and qualitative research approaches hold important positions in the field of research. However, researchers acknowledge the ontological, epistemological, and methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). These differences create a chasm between the quantitative and qualitative researchers’ ideologies (Creswell, 2007). Before considering the paradigmatic differences between quantitative and qualitative research, I am defining paradigm. As mentioned by Lincoln, and Guba (1985), paradigm is “a systematic set of beliefs, together with their accompanying methods” (p. 15). Paradigm is an understanding about the phenomenon or how it works based on the set of assumptions or beliefs. However, paradigm also includes methods governing the system of beliefs or value system (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Moreover, paradigm is a view or a way of interpreting or explaining the phenomenon based on prior understanding. While quantitative research is rooted in the positivist paradigm, qualitative research is based on phenomenological/interpretivist paradigm (Firestone, 1987). The next section elaborates more on quantitative research which follows a different approach to the research than the qualitative research. The ontology, epistemology, and methodology of the positivist paradigm which is a basis for quantitative research is also enumerated in the following section.
156 Quantitative Research Quantitative researchers seek to “explain the causes of changes in social facts, primarily through objective measurement and quantitative analysis” (Firestone, 1987, p. 16). Quantitative researchers use numbers to study the phenomenon or occurrence. The researchers’ goal is to quantify the participant responses and subsequently interpret them to make decisions. The researchers usually are outsiders and do not influence the outcome of the quantitative research. Quantitative research also focuses on proving or disproving a hypothesis based on a large number of participants’ responses. The idea is also to generalize on larger population by conducting analysis using sophisticated statistical tools. In the next section, I am discussing researchers’ reflections on positivism, which is also the basis for the quantitative research approach. Positivism—A Basis for Quantitative Research Schwandt (2001) while stressing that positivism is based on strict empiricism propounded that experience is the sole basis for generating knowledge. In consonance with Schwandt, Merriam (2002) mentioned knowledge is logically bounded by general laws and is observable. Merriam further highlighted, quantitative research worldview believes on single measurable, observable, and provable truth. Quantitative researchers attempt to uncover this reality. The above explanations emphasize that positivism stresses on the role of general laws and assumptions. Assuming the causal factors for a phenomenon and then searching for the effects of those factors also forms an integral part of the positivist research. Rees (1980) defined positivism as “a family of philosophies characterized by an extremely positive evaluation of science and scientific method” (as cited in Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 19). Positivism assumes that if there is a problem, there exists a solution. The interrelationship of cause and effect is the hallmark of the positivist paradigm. The empirical-analytical view as proposed by Coomer (1984) mirrors the positivist paradigm. Coomer stressed that positivism rests on cause-effect or means-end premise and therefore helpful in providing a solution to the technical problems. Ontology According to Schwandt (2001), ontology “is concerned with understanding the kind of things that constitute the world” (p. 190). Ontology of positivist paradigm is rooted deeply into realism, as Gough (2002) confirms, ontology of positivism paradigm is: “Stable external reality; Law-like” (p. 5). The positivist researchers seek the interrelationship between the factors which are part of a constituent of “materialism” and “realism” (Habermas, 1972; Lather, 1991). For example, a research study conducted to explore the causes of work life imbalance in college professors’ lives using survey and statistical techniques may operate on positivist paradigm.
157 The subsequent section highlights the epistemology of the positivist research paradigm. Epistemology The epistemology according to Schwandt (2001) is “the study of the nature of knowledge and justification” (p. 87). Whereas Gough (2002) defines the epistemology of the positivism paradigm as: “objective; detached observer” (p. 5). Lather (1991) and Habermas (1972) defined the epistemology of the positivism paradigm as “Single truth.” Researchers in positivism paradigm seek to establish a relationship (often cause and effect, association, correlation). For example, a research study conducted to find a correlation between student grades and motivation to perform better will seek a single truth thereby falling under positivist paradigm. Methodology Schwandt (2001) described methodology as: “This is the theory of how inquiry should proceed. It involves analysis of the assumptions, principles, and procedures in a particular approach to inquiry” (p. 193). According to Lather (1991) and Habermas (1972) the methodology of the positivism paradigm is scientific method. This may include case study approach, and experimental and control group experiments in which researchers describe the context in detail and remodel questions for field use (Creswell, 2007). In the next section, I am presenting a discussion on qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative Research In qualitative research the researchers explore the meaning as understood by the participants, in a natural setting. The qualitative researchers also seek understanding of the phenomenon or process as shaped by the meanings people bring to them by employing different methods such as interview, case study, observation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Wiersma, and Jurs (2009) clarify in qualitative research, It is the perceptions of those being studied that are important, and, to the extent possible, these perceptions are to be captured in order to obtain an accurate “measure” of reality. “Meaning” is as perceived or experienced by those being studied; it is not imposed by the researcher. (pp. 232-233) The qualitative researchers should not impose their perceptions of the phenomenon to interpret the participants’ views. Rather the participants’ perceptions should be used to gauge the situation and generate knowledge which is the basis for further theoretical explanations. In a qualitative study, the interpretations of the participants are captured based on the participants’ perceptions and understanding of the phenomenon (Swanson, Watkins, & Marsick, 2005). The researcher is more concerned about the perceived meaning rather than the actual meaning. The next section elucidates interpretivism.
158 Interpretivism—A Basis for Qualitative Research According to Schwandt (2001) interpretivism, denotes those approaches to studying social life that accord a central place to Verstehen as a method of the human sciences, that assume that the meaning of human action is inherent in that action, and that the task of the inquirer is to unearth that meaning. (p. 160) The above description suggests that interpretivism seeks meaning by exploring and analyzing. The findings in the interpretivist research gives scope for multitudes of representations and interpretations (Merriam, 2002). The researchers who base their research on interpretivist paradigm seek multitude of explanations and analyze responses in many different ways to uncover the meaning. Ontology According to Schwandt (2001) ontology “is concerned with understanding the kind of things that constitute the world” (p. 190). In addition to Schwandt, who stresses that ontology is seeking meaning by understanding the reality, Gough (2002) defines ontology as: “What is the nature of the ‘knowable’ (or ‘reality’)?” (p. 4). Similarly Gioia and Pitre (1990) stressed that ontology focuses on understanding natural occurences (as cited in Ruona & Lynham, 2004). As the ontology of the interpretivism paradigm is “experienced world” (Habermas, 1972; Lather, 1991), the researchers consider life experiences of the participants as an integral part of their research. Epistemology The epistemology according to Schwandt (2001) is: “the study of the nature of knowledge and justification” (p. 87). In consonance with Schwandt, Gioia and Pitre (1990) describe epistemology as basic understanding about knowledge structure of the phenomenon (as cited in Ruona & Lynham, 2004). To be more specific, the epistemology of the interpretivism paradigm as mentioned is: “Empathetic; Observer intersubjectivity” (Gough, 2002, p. 5). Thus researchers stress on the aspect of epistemology which focuses on the knowledge about the phenomena and the rationale behind the study. According to Lather (1991) and Habermas (1972), the epistemology of the interpretivism paradigm is “multiple truths.” Thus researchers attempt to find more than one explanations for the phenomenon under consideration. Instead of having one answer, the researchers focus on seeking multiple answers.
159 Methodology Schwandt (2001) described methodology as: “theory of how inquiry should proceed. It involves analysis of the assumptions, principles, and procedures in a particular approach to inquiry” (p. 193). In agreement with how Schwandt explained methodology, Gough (2002) defines research methodology as the logic underlying the conduct of research. The methodology according to the authors mentioned above is a way of conducting a research. Methodology also depicts the structure of the research using the principles and fundamental assumptions. According to Lather (1991) and Habermas (1972) the methodology of the interpretivism paradigm is “participant observation.” The research studies in interpretivism paradigm use participant observation. Interviewing the participants to learn about their experiences is thus a commonly used method to understand the phenomenon under consideration. Ontological Differences and Similarities In quantitative research the researcher believes that the reality is objective and controlled by cause and effect relationships. For example a research study about students’ sports participation and student grades, relationship between Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores and selection of major. The quantitative researchers’ ontological belief springs from establishing a relationship between study variables. Researchers believe that the reality is not time or content specific and thus can be generalized e.g. if a researcher discovers in a study that selection of engineering and science majors correlate positively with higher GRE scores. The researcher may make an assumption that the above statement holds true across population and thus the researcher usually selects random sampling. In qualitative research reality is considered incomprehensible, fluid, and shaped and influenced by social interactions. Qualitative researchers seek meaning from participants’ understanding. Common examples include studying perceptions, opinions, beliefs, values of the participants. Mostly people’s lived experiences are source of data generation in qualitative research. The findings are not generalizable and is considered specifically and uniquely shaped by participants’ experiences. Language used in generation of data also impact data generation. Based on above discussion both quantitative and qualitative researchers seek to understand the reality despite differing on the nature of reality. Thus both the research paradigms acknowledge the existence of reality. Although the approaches followed by the two traditions differ, the research purpose of both qualitative and quantitative research traditions is to uncover the realities that exist. The next section presents epistemological differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research paradigm.
160 Epistemological Differences and Similarities The epistemological differences as highlighted in table 1 are presented below. In quantitative research, the researchers believe that there is a single truth or one and only one truth. Thus reality is singular. Knowledge can be generated systematically and explained through structured means. The truth is sought after by the theories. Quantitative researchers seek to control, predict, explain, and describe the scientific phenomenon. Quantitative researchers also believe that knowledge is accurate and the truth can be revealed through experimentation and observations. Quantitative research paradigm generates knowledge by deductive reasoning that is, the research results are generalized and deduced from a large sample. For example, a quantitative research study focusing on the factors impacting job satisfaction of female teachers in a small town school may generate results which will be regarded as the factors responsible for job satisfaction of the teachers. In qualitative research, the researchers believe in the existence of multiple truths. Participants’ understanding, values, beliefs, reasons, and subjective beliefs all contribute towards knowledge generation. The process of knowledge construction is the focus and not just what knowledge is generated or whether the knowledge is constructed or not. Qualitative research paradigm believes in inductive reasoning and seeks to understand multiple realities. Mental, social, and cultural phenomena are examined by qualitative researchers to construct meaning for example, studying the perceptions of small town school teachers to understand the factors impacting the teachers’ job satisfaction. Unlike a quantitative research study, the above study will yield multiple findings and varying results based on individual teacher’s perceptions and understanding. Therefore knowledge generation is open-ended and the researchers do not provide a framework for knowledge construction. Qualitative researchers also follow inductive reasoning as they deal with small participant sample. From the above discussion, it is clear that epistemological differences between quantitative and qualitative research are wide and varied. Nevertheless, both research paradigms accept that reality needs to be unearthed, interpreted, and understood by the researchers. Both quantitative and qualitative researchers believe that knowledge can be generated or constructed and a researcher’s role is to find either the single truth or multiple truths. Both research paradigms believe identically in trueness of the findings. The next section describes the methodological similarities and differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Methodological Differences and Similarities The methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms are described in this segment. In quantitative research, the researchers utilize scientific methods,
161 conduct experiments, and control phenomenon under investigation by altering the variables to achieve objective results. However, the quantitative researchers do not influence the research outcomes. For example study about a newfound brain function improving drug dosages and student grades. The dependent variable i.e. student grades will be controlled by independent variable—drug dosage. Thus researchers can control the variables but do not subjectively impact the outcomes merely by their presence during data collection. Conversely, in quantitative research, the researchers utilize participant observation to create meaning along with the study participants. The investigator also influences the study outcomes by bringing in own subjective experiences. For example, depending on the type of relationship of the researcher in the study, about understanding the perceptions of job satisfaction among small town school teachers, the findings may vary. To elaborate participant responses will be different in each of the following cases: whether the researcher is a school principal, student, fellow teacher, administrator or independent outside researcher. The researchers in qualitative research also seek to comprehend the whole phenomenon under investigation by understanding the sub parts that is in case of the research study described above studying individual teachers’ perceptions. The above discussion highlights noteworthy methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Nevertheless, the commonality in the methodology between the two research paradigms is that both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms utilize observation to collect data. Both research paradigms focus on creating meaning, quantitative research follows a detached observer stance, whereas qualitative research co-create the meaning by involving the participants. Table 1 summarizes the above discussion about the ontological, epistemological, and methodological similarities and differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Table 1 Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological differences and similarities between qualitative and quantitative research paradigms (Attached Separately) Conclusions This paper presents ontological, epistemological, and methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. From the analysis presented in this paper, it is evident that the differences between the two paradigms are significant and guide the approaches of quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative paradigm utilizes positivist paradigm to support objective nature of reality. Positivists believe that reality can be deciphered through observation. Positivists also believe in predicting the research outcomes by controlling
162 the research variables. Quantitative research utilizes scientific methods including experiments and do not directly influence the research outcomes by their presence. Qualitative research follows a somewhat different approach in investigating the research problem and believes that reality cannot be comprehended as it is constantly shaped through social interactions. The interpretivist paradigm, which is the basis for qualitative research, believes in multiple truths and seeks to explain the construction of knowledge and not just whether the knowledge is constructed or not. Participant observation is one of the main methods utilized in interpretivist paradigm. In qualitative research, the researchers cannot detach themselves form the researched phenomenon as they bring in their subjective experiences. References Coomer, D. (1984). Critical science: Approach to vocational education research. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 9(4), 34-50. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32) SAGE Publications. Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21. Gough, N. (2002). Blank spots, blind spots, and methodological questions in postgraduate research. Paper presented at the Postgraduate Research Conference, Deakin University. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interest. London: Heinemann. Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality and Quantity, 39(3), 267-295. doi:10.1007/s11135-004-1670-0 Ruona, W. E. A., & Lynham, S. A. (2004). A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 151-164.
163 Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Swanson, B. L., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2005). Qualitative research methods. In Doing action research in your own organization (2nd ed., pp. 88-113). London: Sage Publications. Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2009). Research methods in education (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Copyright of Global Education Journal is the property of Franklin Publishing Company and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Journal of Management ResearchVol. 15, No. 1, Jan–March 2015, pp. 23–33Toward A Conceptual Model of Ethics inResearchGail D. CaruthAbstractHistory provides opportunities to look back and evaluate events. Looking back to historical eventssurrounding research provides the possibility for learning from decisions made and actions takenpreviously. It is apparent that both good and bad actions were taken during the early years of research.The purpose of this paper was to take a contemporary and historical look into the evolution of ethics inresearch. This investigation is valuable to higher education because by exploring the events preparationscan be made to recognize potential wrongs, avoid or reduce potential wrongs, and determine who isresponsible for ethical research. A conceptual model of ethical research is presented. Ethics in researchis a shared responsibility. It is dependent on history, the researcher, the reviewers, and the researchcommunity. History guides the researcher, the review process, and the research communities.Keywords: Research Ethics, Research Standards, Research Guidelines, Ethical Review of Research,History of Ethics in ResearchResearch, the quest for knowledge, dates back to thebeginning of humanity. Higher education continuedthis quest to search for, comprehend, and utilizenew knowledge through the establishment andevolution of universities in the Old World as wellas the New. The classical trivium and quadrivium, forexample, played an important part in the desire tostudy the existence of earth. Tied to this processof discovering new knowledge was the acceptedtrust that science was naturally good because it wasfounded on truth by presenting information as it is,care by improving society, innovation by discoveringfresh potentials and bright promises, anddevelopment by enhancing civilization. These basicbeliefs led to confidence in the research communityand that it too was a community based on truth.However, misconduct in university research resultedin mistrust of the research communities and a focuson ethics in research, claimed Lategan (2012).The underpinnings of ethics can be observed as farback as the ancient Greek philosophical study ofmorality and refers to a system of principles thatcan significantly alter prior opinions regardingdecisions and behaviors. Ethics has been referred toas that branch of philosophy pertaining to howchoices are made between what is right and what iswrong. Research is regulated by individual,community, and social principles. Research ethicsrelates to behaviors, processes, protection of humansubjects, and the publication of results (Foukaand Mantzorou, 2011).Hen
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
