Lakhasly

Quantitative and qualitative research stem from different philosophical assumptions that shape the ways researchers approach problems and collect and analyze data. Quantitative research originated in positivism, a philosophic view
formulated in Europe in the 19th century. Positivists believe that general principles or laws govern the social world as they do the physical world and that
through objective procedures researchers can discover these principles and
apply them to understand human behavior. The positivists, such as Francis
Bacon (recall the anecdote in Chapter 1), stressed observation as the primary
source of dependable knowledge. Positivism is often considered the traditional
scientifi c method, which involves hypothesis testing and objective data gathering to arrive at fi ndings that are systematic, generalizable, and open to replication by other investigators.
Qualitative research is based on a different philosophical approach, which
sees the individual and his or her world as so interconnected that essentially
the one has no existence without the other. It sees social reality as unique; thus,
researchers can only understand human behavior by focusing on the meanings
that events have for the people involved. You must look not only at what people
do but also at how they think and feel, and you must attempt to understand their
reality. The intended result of a qualitative research study is a narrative report so
rich and comprehensive that you can understand the social reality experienced
by the participants. Furthermore, because researchers do not know in advance
how naturally occurring events will unfold or what variables may be important,
they do not begin a study with hypotheses.
Historically, the quantitative approach has dominated education research. In
the late 20th century, however, scholars began to call for an alternative to the
quantitative approach in educational research (Guba & Lincoln, 1988). They
believed that using quantitative methods in highly controlled settings ignored
the participants’ perspectives and experiences. Qualitative research was the
alternative. For a time, the relationship between quantitative and qualitative
researchers was somewhat adversarial, but gradually there was a trend toward
rapprochement as researchers began to see quantitative and qualitative methodology as complementary. Pring (2004) wrote, “The distinctions within the
so-called paradigms are often as signifi cant as the distinctions between them”
(p. 48). A new methodology in which the same study uses both quantitative and
qualitative approaches is called mixed methods research. The end result of
mixed methods research is fi ndings that may be more dependable and provide
a more complete explanation of the research problem than either method alone
could provide. All of these approaches are discussed in greater detail in later
chapters.
As an example, assume you want to know the impact of a newly instituted dress
code in an inner-city high school. Depending on exactly what you want to fi nd
out, you might choose either a quantitative or a qualitative approach alone or a
mixed methods approach. In a quantitative study, you could measure subsequent
attendance, frequency of violations of the code, and/or the number of school
suspensions for failure to comply. You might administer a survey that assesses
students’ attitudes toward the new policy or one that asks teachers about the
policy’s effect on the incidence of disciplinary problems in the school. Numerical
data would be gathered and analyzed. In a qualitative study, you might observe student behavior in classes and also interview groups of students to obtain indepth information on how the new dress code has affected their motivation and
learning in the classroom, their self-image, and their general attitude toward
school. One might interview parents to assess their reaction to the dress code and
how they think it has affected their children. The result could be a rich, verbal
description of the personal and social meaning that the new policy has for students. Combining these approaches in a mixed methods study would provide the
most complete information on the effect of the dress code.
Whether researchers choose quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods
depends not on their preference for one or another but on the suitability of the
particular method for what they are studying and what they want to fi nd out. One
uses what will work to provide the type of data that are appropriate for answering the research question. As Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) wrote, “What
is most fundamental is the research question—research methods should followresearch questions in a way that offers the best chance to obtain useful (and the
most thorough) answers” (pp. 17–18).
A caveat is in order, however. It may be more diffi cult to carry out a mixed
methods study because one must have knowledge and an understanding of both
quantitative and qualitative methodology. A mixed methods study also typically
involves more extensive data collection and analysis and thus will require more
time and effort to complete. We discuss mixed methods research in Chapter
19. The reader is referred to Creswell and Plano Clark (2006) for in-depth
discussion of the mixed methods approach in research. Table 2.1 summarizes
briefl y the major characteristics of the quantitative and qualitative research
approachesWe next discuss specifi c types of research included in the broad categories of
quantitative and qualitative research.