Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Approach, as Opposed to Quantitative Approach - Literature review Example

Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Approach as Opposed to Quantitative Approach Introduction Possibly one of the most important decisions in the research process involves identification of the research methodology. Saunders et al (2014: p24) note that the choice of research methodology is especially important because it determines the conclusions that the researcher can make from their study, while the rigor and appropriateness of the chosen research method ultimately determines the impact the study has on management knowledge and studies. Generally, this choice is based on whether the research is focused on historical or contemporary events, the researcher’s level of control over actual events, and the type of research question. These criteria allow the researcher to choose between using a qualitative or quantitative approach. Whereas the qualitative approach involves the gathering of rich and holistic data in an open and multi-dimensional research process where theory is inadequate or the phenomena are under-investigated, quantitative research seeks to explore/analyse cause-effect relationships and test theoretical models (Saunders et al, 2014: p25). The continuum between the qualitative and quantitative extremes, however, also allows researchers to use a mixed methodology. This paper will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research compared to quantitative research. Qualitative and Quantitative Research According to Saunders et al (2014: p44), qualitative research tends to focus more on the perceptions, emotions, and decision-making factors of individuals and groups, compared to quantitative research that is reliant on data and numbers. For instance, in the event that an enterprise wishes to alter their branding, qualitative research provides the best method of investigating the emotions and perceptions that consumers have to the new brand identity. Normally, qualitative research leads with discussions on specific ideas or concepts using open questioning, in which participants are encouraged to describe or explain the reasoning that underlies their responses, thus revealing their behavioural, associational, and motivational triggers. Perhaps the most common design in the qualitative approach is the focus group, while one-on-one interviews on the telephone or face-to-face are also common (Saunders et al, 2014: p45). Quantitative research involves a more data-led and logical approach that elicits measures of opinion from a numerical or statistical perspective. An enterprise seeking to investigate the support for proposed change in their services or products among consumers, as well as the level of their support for this change on a scale, for instance, would use a quantitative approach (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004: p16). Largely, quantitative approach uses methods like surveys and questionnaires with pre-determined questions and choices ticked by the participants. In this case, the researcher can identify the strength of feelings in the answers by measuring the answers using numerical scales, for example. Obviously, this would require a fair cross-section of participants and a large one at that in order to attain more reliable data. The two methods can also be combined into a mixed approach, which can be sued to provide more insightful data and results for enterprises looking to learn more about the reactions, preferences, and opinions of their consumers (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004: p17). For instance, a marketer may want to investigate issues of importance to the consumer prior to distributing a survey to gather quantitative data. This would necessitate the use of a qualitative approach, specifically to put together deeper questions that can aid in improving the insight provided by the questionnaire. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Strengths of Qualitative Research as Opposed to Quantitative Research The qualitative methodology approach, according to Walliman (2011: p50), tends to be rich in description and narrative and rather than providing a research outcome, they are more focused on discussing the process. Unlike the goals of qualitative research, there is no attempt by quantitative inquiry to first understand the interactive context within which the participants are located. While data from quantitative inquiry can numerically describe research results and findings, quantitative inquiry fails to go the extra steps, that qualitative research does; which are to first understand the phenomena being observed and discover its meaning via detailed explanations that cannot be undertaken through quantitative studies. In addition, qualitative research enhances the researcher’s comprehension of ‘otherness’, specifically because the goal of in-depth studies of particular groups is to understand the groups, rather than to explain their reality (Walliman, 2011: p50). This understanding of ‘otherness’ is grounded in the sociological, anthropological, cultural studies, human geography, and social psychology traditions. Although these are not sciences in the traditional sense of the word, their rich and long histories provide a stable foundation for high-quality research in the qualitative inquiry. For Adams et al (2013: p32), another advantage of qualitative research over quantitative research is that it provides a better approach for describe little-understood and complex phenomena, while the fact that data is collected in a naturalistic environment gives it an added advantage over quantitative inquiry, especially where research is being conducted on a niche market. In turn, this capability means that qualitative inquiry is more responsive the needs of the participating consumers and their local conditions, as well as the needs of those who are seeking to be informed by the research, compared to quantitative inquiry. The fact that qualitative inquiry allows for collection of the participant’s words, unlike quantitative inquiry that only collects numerical data, means that it has the added ability to lend to further research into why and how the phenomena happen (Adams et al, 2013: p33). Moreover, qualitative research also allows the researcher to investigate and study dynamic processes, especially in marketing where consumer tastes and preferences are prone to constant change. Qualitative inquiry also enables more attention to detail than is possible through quantitative inquiry, particularly because it allows the researcher to embrace both non-verbal and verbal behaviour. This, in turn, allows for the researcher using qualitative inquiry to discover new meanings, penetrate fronts, and reveal the complexity and subtlety of issues or cases in the marketing process (Adams et al, 2013: p33). Qualitative inquiry is also more suited to conveying the experiences and feelings of the participants, as well as portraying their perspectives, compared to quantitative research. This ability is especially possible because qualitative inquiry allows the researcher to conduct their data collection process in naturalistic settings, while also using more encompassing processes than are possible through quantitative research. In addition, the actions and information collected as data by the researcher using qualitative inquiry are contextualized within the time and situations within which they occur. Lancaster (2013: p39) also notes that qualitative research enhances the ability of researchers to generate theory from the collected data, enabling a closeness of fit between the collected data and theory. Quantitative inquiry, on the other hand, is more focused on collecting data to prove or disprove a theory. Although qualitative inquiry receives several criticisms compared to quantitative inquiry for its lack of generalizability, it is still arguable that the findings of qualitative inquiry can be generalized. For example, the theory generated by this research approach is availed for other researchers to apply or test, while the findings may contribute to archival studies on specific problems or issues despite it being a single case study, which the succeeding researchers can then re-interpret (Lancaster, 2013: p40). For instance, a researcher conducting their study from several qualitative studies on the social circumstances of sales persons may develop a different reasoning or explanation of sales person quality from other official explanations that are mainly focused on the sales person’s personal qualities. Similarly, researchers may draw on various qualitative studies to generate theories on business organisation. Another advantage or strength that qualitative studies have over quantitative inquiry is that the researcher’s interests, disposition, and experience can be related to the research process, providing additional opportunity for them to advance their work (Lancaster, 2013: p40). Moreover, qualitative data provides data quality that challenges the researcher to look for interconnections in the data, as well as to find unexpected direction of information from the rich data (Lancaster, 2013: p41). Qualitative inquiry is also more beneficial to the researcher as it gives them to think and is a prelude to creativity, specifically because, unlike quantitative research, qualitative data acts as a baseline for new ideas. It is also noteworthy that researchers find it easier to recognize any weakness in qualitative studies conducted earlier, especially if they are using these studies for their literature review. Finally, qualitative researchers believe that their values are a huge influence on their research, while the hypotheses, theories, or framework utilised by the researcher in the particular context of the research re equally as important. Although this may lead to researcher bias, marketing research requires some level of bias towards the particular business that is subjected to the study, which can be satisfied by using qualitative research (Lancaster, 2013: p41). Weaknesses of Qualitative Research as Opposed to Quantitative Research One important weakness of qualitative research, specifically from the perspective of qualitative research, is that it is narrative-ridden, value-laden, and context rich nature may contain insufficient evidence and too much information (Gill, 2010: p51). In addition, because the researcher takes part in the research study actively and is more likely passionate about the group under study or the study’s context, this passion may lead to bias, while also causing an inability to understand and consider other explanations for the observed phenomena. Because of qualitative inquiry’s nature, which tends to be more focused on small cases or populations, it may come in for criticism in relation to its inability to integrate a wider range of data and information in its evaluations and analyses. Also, another weakness in qualitative inquiry is that the researcher may end up expressing their own personal feelings, perceptions, or opinions, rather than reporting accurate results and findings from the research study. The qualitative researcher may also choose to report the findings selectively (Gill, 2010: p51). With regards to practicality of research, qualitative inquiry tends to be more time consuming than quantitative inquiry, particularly where the qualitative study is meant to be more insightful (Gill, 2010: p52). The process of collecting qualitative data is not simple because it risks many opportunities for error by the researcher; unlike specific quantitative inquiry, designs that require numerical data to be inputted into software programmes that enable the researcher get almost instantaneous results. Due to qualitative inquiry’s narrative aspect, there is a higher chance for occurrence of error across all stages of the research compared to quantitative studies. For instance, the root of all qualitative inquiry is language and because of this, language is incredibly critical to the quality of the study. This importance is significant due to the fact that a specific phrase or term may mean one thing to some participants in the research study, while portending a completely different meaning to other participants (Gill, 2010: p52). Further, the phrase or term may also have a completely different meaning to the qualitative researcher. Another caveat in using qualitative research methodology is that majority of scholarly resources and journals tend to publish quantitative research manuscripts, instead choosing to publish quantitative research manuscripts (Carson, 2011: p28). One of the reasons given for this tendency is that qualitative methods have less rigorous report findings standards compared to quantitative methods. A second more recent reasoning behind this preference for publishing quantitative reports is that there is increased focus on empirical data from quantitative research in marketing, which are positivist and fundamentalist in conception (Saunders et al, 2014: p50). It is also arguable that generalisation across many cases cannot be achieved using single qualitative studies. There are several reasons why this is a weakness in comparison to quantitative inquiry. A researcher who is immersed in the depths of such inquiry may end up going native or even risk ‘macro blindness’, which means that the qualitative researcher may choose to provide explanations focused on the observed situation. In case this is done in oblivion to forces that are more powerful and operating as confounding variables, the findings may not be fully explainable (Carson, 2011: p28). Bryman and Bell (2014: p48) also argue that, compared to quantitative inquiry, qualitative research can be a low-yield, high-risk enterprise, especially since it takes time to negotiate for access to the participants or their facility, develop rapport and trust, assemble a sample, and discover what the participants are thinking of or what is ‘going on’. When the qualitative researcher begins to muddle through or hang around certain points in the research process, it raises anxiety that the study will not bring up any new information and that the researcher may become confused by all the irrelevant information. Finally, qualitative inquiry has also come in for criticism as being too idiosyncratic, biased, subjective, impressionistic, and lacking in precision, especially when contrasted with quantitative research that relies on empirical data. Typically, some of this bias comes from the rhetorical manner in which participant accounts are presented. In this case, the qualitative researcher may use several rhetorical devices, including jargon, metaphor, variable and selected use of transcript, selective use of references and examples, and quotations aimed at persuading the reader subtly to agree with their line of argument (Bryman & Bell, 2014: p49). However, it may also be argued that there are available procedures to establish rigour and validity, which should be included in qualitative presentations. Conclusion From the discussion above on the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research as opposed to quantitative inquiry, it is arguable that the nature of the research problem essentially determines the better methodology. For instance, since qualitative research is exploratory in nature, it is best used where the research problem needs to be refined, where the researcher does not know what the results will be like, or to develop a new approach t solve research problems. In addition, the strengths of qualitative inquiry mean that it is the best method to use where the researcher wants to study a problem in depth or where they want to explore nuances related to the present problem. On the other hand, its weaknesses means that it is unsuitable if the researcher is attempting to quantify a problem, or even understand its prevalence in the population. References Adams, J., Khan, H. T. A., & Raeside, R. (2013). Research methods for business and social science students. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2014). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carson, D. (2011). Qualitative marketing research. London: SAGE. Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Research Methods for Managers. London: Sage Publications. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33, 7, 14-26. Lancaster, G. (2013). Research methods in management: A concise introduction to research in management and business consultancy. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2014). Research methods for business students. Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited. Walliman, N. S. R. (2011). Research methods: The basics. London: Routledge. Read More