Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher

Laura M. O′Dwyer, James A. Bernauer

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781483320663
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher is a concise, supplemental text that provides qualitatively oriented students and researchers with the requisite skills for conducting quantitative research. Throughout the book, authors Laura M. O'Dwyer and James A. Bernauer provide ample support and guidance to prepare readers both cognitively and attitudinally to conduct high quality research in the quantitative tradition. Highlighting the complementary nature of quantitative and qualitative research, they effectively explain the fundamental structure and purposes of design, measurement, and statistics within the framework of a research report, (including a dissertation). The text encourages the reader to see quantitative methodology for what it is, a process for systematically discovering new knowledge that can help describe, explain, and predict the world around us.

1 Understanding the Purpose of Research in the Qualitative and Quantitative Traditions

Chapter Outline

• What Is Research?
• What Constitutes Quality Research?
• Quality Questions in Relation to the Final Research Report
• Problem Finding Versus Problem Solving
• Qualitative and Quantitative Traditions and the “Paradigm Wars”

In this chapter, we begin our journey with a discussion of research per se as well as some of the fundamental philosophical assumptions that underlie the qualitative tradition. We then offer 10 questions that we think get at the heart of what constitutes quality research. Subsequently, we set the stage for introducing research in the quantitative tradition by introducing some of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research and discuss the paradigm wars that characterize the historical differences of the research traditions.

What is Research?

Why should those individuals who are qualitatively inclined want to learn about the quantitative tradition and its associated methods? Just as a variety of physical tools enable us to enlarge on what we can do, so too does having facility with the distinct research tools offered by the quantitative and qualitative traditions enable us to explore phenomena in ways that embrace multiple ways of knowing (Gardner, 1983). In addition, conceptualizing the quantitative and qualitative traditions by using different primary symbol systems (numbers vs. words) in pursuit of the same goal of discovering new knowledge promotes both cognitive and creative outcomes as noted by Vygotsky (Karpov & Haywood, 1998).

So what exactly is research? While the prefix “re” means “again” or “anew” and the verb “search” means “to examine,” the entire word “research” is usually defined as “scientific inquiry.” Although neither of us (the authors) are etymologists, one of our preferred definitions is “research is a systematic process to make things known that are currently unknown by examining phenomena multiple times and in multiple ways.” That is, we see research as an open invitation to use multiple perspectives, data sources, replications, and methods to investigate phenomena. While there is nothing especially original or earth shattering about this definition, we respectfully ask our readers to adopt it at least temporarily so that we can begin and end our journey together while enjoying the experience along the way.

If one focuses only on differences within the qualitative tradition, Creswell (2007) indicates that while qualitative research in general espouses the philosophical assumptions reproduced in Chapter 2, Figure 2.1, there are differences among researchers in relation to paradigmatic and interpretive perspectives, including the role of postpositivism, constructivism, advocacy, feminism, and critical theory. There are also differences regarding the purposes and methods associated with specific designs, such as ethnographic, phenomenological, and grounded theory. While the quantitative tradition does not encompass the same degree of philosophical and paradigmatic diversity as the qualitative tradition, it includes a variety of designs, depending on whether the purpose is to explore, describe, or explain.

If one contrasts quantitative and qualitative traditions, there are obvious identifiable differences. However, we argue that there is no fundamental conflict in terms of our definition of research as described above. As Guba (1981) pointed out early on, “There is no inherent reason why either paradigm cannot accommodate, and be contributed to, by either methodology” (p. 78). There is, however, one more consideration regarding differences across traditions that should be noted; namely, what is desired to be known. Some researchers may want to know what makes a clock tick faster, while others want to know why the clock ticks instead of squeaks, or perhaps even why clocks are necessary in the first place. What is considered interesting and pivotal to a problem thus becomes the specific focus of each researcher. While all researchers try “to make things known that are currently unknown,” the particular aspect of the unknown that is investigated depends on the interests, paradigmatic perspectives, and predispositions of each researcher. Everybody is on the same team, it just may not be obvious at times—so let's move on and examine some of the characteristics that indicate team membership.

What Constitutes Quality Research?

To develop a common base of understanding, we now briefly define what we mean by qualitative and quantitative research. In a nutshell, qualitative research seeks to discover new knowledge by retaining complexities as they exist in natural settings, whereas quantitative research seeks to discover new knowledge by simplifying complexities in settings that tend to be more contrived. Of course, when one tries to provide a pithy one-sentence definition for something that has commandeered thousands of advocates, millions of opposing words, and decades of work, an unintended consequence may be the alienation of some readers. However, since we (the authors) have managed to coexist in relative harmony and have appreciated what each has had to say, we offer ourselves as living proof that numbers and words need not collide!

Now that we have presented definitions of research and the two major types of research, we move forward and define “quality” in research by proposing 10 guiding questions that we find relevant for conducting sound research in both quantitative and qualitative traditions:

1. Do the research questions have practical or theoretical significance?
2. Are the terms used in the research questions clearly defined?
3. Have the research questions been adequately positioned within the literature?
4. Were appropriate participants selected to answer the research questions?
5. Is the research design appropriate for investigating the research questions?
6. Are the instrument(s) appropriate for generating the data needed to answer these questions?
7. Have procedures been ethically and rigorously followed?
8. Were appropriate methods used to analyze data?
9. Were results appropriately presented, interpreted, and synthesized with the literature to answer the research questions and draw conclusions?
10. Has the report of the research been written clearly, aesthetically, and unambiguously?

Question 1: Do the Research Questions have Practical or Theoretical Significance?

Creativity and questions that excite the mind are the incubators of quality research and provide the necessary foundation for quality studies in both traditions. On the other hand, questions that are mundane, uninteresting, or trivial are not typically endorsed by journal editors or doctoral committees, regardless of the brilliance of the design or analysis. A research study is organic with its components having a necessary interdependence, so while doing things right is important, it is first necessary to ask the right questions. Rigor without direction usually results in ending up in an unknown or undesirable place. If answers to proposed research questions are not thought to be potentially helpful for understanding important phenomena or to perform important work in a better way, then conducting research based on such questions is generally a waste of time and resources. Asking the right questions in the right way is an essential element of quality research, whereas triviality and lack of clarity are twin enemies that can doom a study before it has begun. Being in a position to answer “yes” to Question 1, while not sufficient to ensure quality, trumps the other criteria.

It should be noted, however, that while clearly specifying all research questions prior to collecting data is the accepted protocol for quantitative studies, the qualitative tradition allows for the addition, deletion, or modification of research questions concomitant with data collection. The rationale for this latter approach is that as a deeper understanding of participants and contexts unfolds as the study progresses, richer questions sometimes evolve. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) express perhaps a more fundamental issue when they say that research questions generally “carry with them qualities of clear definability and the expectation of solutions, but narrative inquiry carries more of a sense of a search, a ‘re-search,’ a searching again” (p. 124). With respect to this difference between the quantitative and qualitative traditions, we see it as related more to process rather than an underlying common intent. The goal of both traditions is to formulate important questions that spring from human creativity and insight and possess the potential for going beyond what is already known to add to the existing body of knowledge—regardless if these questions are formulated prior to conducting a study or emerge as the study progresses.

Question 2: Are the Terms Used in the Research Questions Clearly Defined?

Closely allied with asking the right questions is making sure that both writers and readers understand the questions in the same way. As Floden points out using an example related to teacher certification, unless central terms are clarified, there are myriad definitions that may be attached to them by myriad readers (Moss et al., 2009, p. 505). Because of this potential ambiguity, we believe that quality studies should include a definition of terms and variables in the introduction that further clarify the research questions. Not only will such definitions clarify the study for readers, they will also help researchers to stay on the right path as they plan and conduct their studies.

Question 3: Have the Research Questions Been Adequately Positioned within the Literature?

While research can be thought of as discovery learning that draws on individual creativity and insights, it can reach its full potential only when it also draws on the insights and ideas of others; that is, as researchers exclaim, “we discovered,” they should also proclaim, “the following individuals helped us to discover.” The value of any discovery is contextually dependent on what others have previously found or theorized, especially since it provides a framework for interpreting findings. Engagement with the literature over long periods of time also provides an “advance organizer” to help generate creative sparks that can later ignite into questions of significance. A quality study does not materialize or exist in a vacuum; rather, it needs to incubate as ideas arise and as connections are made through reading and listening to what others have said. This is why a review of the relevant literature (whether done prior to or concurrently with a study) is so important—it helps us formulate questions that, while “original,” spring from or fit with the work of others.

Quality work does not recognize the artificial dichotomy that we have built between quantitative and qualitative research; it depends on one's long-term commitment to learn about a specific phenomenon. Quality research depends on quality questions, and quality questions depend on making connections to what others have previously discovered. However, to bring the argument back to the essential criterion of researcher creativity noted in Question 1, the Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1893–1986) once said, “Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” While we can benefit tremendously from what others have said, each of us has the potential to unearth our own insights and thereby make unique contributions to the literature, thus paying back the debt owed to those from whom we borrowed.

Question 4: Were Appropriate Participants Selected to Answer the Research Questions?

One must not only ask the right questions in the right way, but these questions must be directed toward those who are in a good position to answer them. Whether conducting an experimental or an ethnographic study, there must be a clear rationale for how and why particular participants and settings have been included in the study, even if a participant materializes almost by happenstance. While quantitative research often requires a relatively large representative sample using a type of random selection so the findings can be generalized to a larger population, qualitative research focuses on rich or thick description based on a limited number of participants and settings that enable readers to determine to what extent findings may be transferable to their own settings. As Wolcott (1988) so aptly expresses it by citing Margaret Mead, the question in qualitative research is not “Is this case representative?” but rather “What is this case representative of?” (p. 203). Nonetheless, the key consideration is that under both traditions, participants are central to the study and need to be selected in a way that is consistent with the research questions that are asked and the degree of control that is possible or desired.

Question 5: Is the Research Design Appropriate for Investigating the Research Questions?

The purpose of a research design is to provide a framework for conducting the study and to minimize “alternative explanations,” while also supporting claims for generalizability or transferability to other participants and settings. In quantitative studies, the features of designs related to generalizability and causal understanding are referred to, respectively, as external validity and internal validity (Chapters 4 and 6). Qualitative research also strives to arrive at a valid and accurate understanding of phenomena, as well as a type of generalizability, although as we will see in Chapter 2, with a reduced emphasis on the a priori need for transferability of findings, as well as a different approach for doing so.

There are various kinds of research designs within both research traditions. For example, within the qualitative tradition, typical designs include ethnographic, case study, phenomenological, grounded theory, and narrative (see Chapter 2). Typical designs in the quantitative tradition will be introduced in Chapter 3 and described in detail in Chapters 7 and 8. Each of these designs suggests the type of data to be collected, methods of data collection, and methods of analysis that are “designed” to lead to valid and trustworthy answers to research questions.

Question 6: Are the Instrument(s) Appropriate for Generating the Data Needed to Answer the Research Questions?

In both quantitative and qualitative traditions, the evidence (data) that we collect provide the basis for answering research questions, and the quality of this evidence depends on the quality of the instruments that are used to generate it. In quantitative studies, validity and reliability are essential attributes of instruments (e.g., tests or questionnaires). Whereas validity is generally defined as the degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure (Creswell, 2008; Kerlinger, 1973), reliability is described as the consistency of measurement. Of these two criteria, validity is considered the more important, since measuring what is intended is the crux of the matter, and if an instrument is valid, then by definition, it is also reliable (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). There are various types of validity and reliability that are considered important for a particular quantitative study depending on its purpose (see Chapters 5 and 6).

Regarding qualitative studies, the researcher is the primary instrument because qualitative researchers are more intimately involved with participants compared with their quantitative colleagues (see Chapter 2) to capture the complexities of human feelings, intentions, experiences, and context. This intimacy includes not only the data collection phase (using interviews, observation, or artifacts) but also the results and interpretation stages, where member c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Detailed Contents
• Preface
• Section I Research in the Social Sciences: Qualitative Meets Quantitative
• 1 Understanding the Purpose of Research in the Qualitative and Quantitative Traditions
• 2 Research in the Qualitative Tradition and Connections to the Quantitative Tradition
• 3 Research in the Quantitative Tradition
• Section II The Sine Qua Non for Conducting Research in the Quantitative Tradition
• 4 Choosing Research Participants and Making Generalizations: Sampling and External Validity
• 5 Measurement and Instrumentation in Quantitative Research
• 6 Minimizing Alternative Explanations for Research Findings: Internal Validity
• Section III Research Design and Data Analysis in the Quantitative Tradition
• 7 Non-Experimental Research Designs
• 8 Experimental Research Designs
• 9 Descriptive Analyses for Data Generated by Quantitative Research
• 10 Inferential Analyses for Data Generated by Quantitative Research
• Section IV Reconciling the Paradigms
• 11 The Complementary Natures of Quantitative and Qualitative Research
• Appendix Guidelines for Evaluating Research Summaries
• References
• Author Index
• About the Authors