Sampling Logic in Qualitative and Quantitative Research - Assignment Example

Research Study (Name) (University) Task 1 Question 1: Quantitative and Qualitative questions In qualitative questions, the words hold the clues. Qualitative questions are open-ended without subsequent reference to literature. Simply put, quantitative question consolidates benchtop science (where experiments are conducted) epidemiology (where illness rates of a given population are obtained) just to name a few. As such, these questions take two forms name associated sub-questions and central questions. In designing the questions, central questions are often followed by sub-questions; where they narrow the focus of the research but allow questioning (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The central questions are instrumental in identifying and questioning pertinent issues that are significant in the research. Tentatively, central questions act as guiding principles for the researcher in various paradigms. Consequently, qualitative research questions are linked to specific qualitative inquiry approach. Throughout the research, the questions focus on a single phenomenon, subject to influential factors that may shape the question in the course of the research work. This form of evolution is attuned to the assumption of the research design. The evolution process compels its continued review and formulation. In quantitative studies, however, quantitative research questions are frequently used in developing the purpose of the study. These questions are imperative since they inquire the relationship between variables that researchers seek to understand. Social science, particularly survey studies use quantitative research questions to a greater degree. Quantitative research questions are fixed throughout the research; moreover they begin with phrases such as “what”, “why” and “how”. Given the nature of the quantitative research the researcher is compelled to specify the dependent and independent variables. At times, the questions may be related or subjected to comparisons when dealing with multiple questions. Scenario Qualitative study will present its findings based in past research. It follows that credible sources will be used in presenting aspects depression, as well as, a cumulative study from different studies. On the other hand, quantitative study will present an up to date analysis that incorporates accurate statistics from the study population. Evidently the study, will be a representative of a wider demographic. Question 2: Sampling Logic in Qualitative and Quantitative Research The differences between the sampling logic in qualitative and quantitative studies emanate from divergent goals from each research strategy (Johnson and Christensen, 2008). Evidently, quantitative research supposes from a sample of a population (for instance a relationship or treatment). The aspect of representativeness is an imperative feature of quality of the sample used (Berg, 2007). In this respect, different study populations are included in order to supplement the population in the study. The objectives of quantitative research, therefore, can be inferred as an empirical generalization to various populations. Quantitative sampling procedures are subjected to the following steps; selecting target population, selection of an accessible population, stating the eligibility criteria, outlining the sample plan and recruiting the sample population (Johnson and Christensen, 2008). Contrariwise, qualitative research sampling logic is fundamentally introduced with a specific population, event, and type of individuals or processes (Lichtman, 2006). A sample population is therefore selected for the study. As such, the research’s goals and the population’s characteristics dictate “which” and “how” many participants are to be selected. The objective of the qualitative sampling logic can be conceptualized as an in-depth understanding of specific issues. Some of the commonly used sampling methods include purposive sampling, quota sampling and snowball sampling, to name a few. Its evolution is realized in the following approach; a generalization of the population in where to start through soliciting certain cases by using preferred procedures; selection the sample units; attuning the sample to the conceptualized facts; sampling for the saturation levels (Johnson and Christensen, 2008). Question 3: Purposive Vs. Probabilistic Sampling Purposive sampling approach is a form of non-probability sampling that is efficient in studying cultural domain with the inclusion of knowledgeable professionals. Although, purposive sampling tantamount with qualitative research, it may as well be used in the quantitative techniques (Given, 2008). Otherwise known as a judgment sampling, it deliberately uses choice of an informant, given the quality of information possessed by the informant. This approach does not need any prior theories or a specific number of informants. The participants for are not always equal- where a well-placed informant may be better the random selection. Nevertheless, its approach is exemplified by the key informant approach, in which, few participants are selected to act as guides to a culture (Given, 2008). Probabilistic sampling is simply a sampling approach that uses random selection, where, each unit is selected with a known probability, or is typified by a nonzero chance of being chosen for the sample size. These samples are selected by using random numbers. In this respect, a measure of sampling variation can be deduced from the selected sample. Question 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection Methods Qualitative and quantitative data collection strategies present a trade-off existing between the depth and breadth, as well as, a target of generalized population. In this regard, qualitative research methods often explore phenomena, where flexible instruments are used. These tools include; participating in the research setting, in-depth interviews, direct observation and analyzing material culture and documents (Lichtman, 2006). It, therefore, allows increased adaptation and spontaneity between the researcher and the study population. The study design can be attuned to what is being learned from the research. The methodologies used seek to the describe variation; describe group norms and individual experiences. In this respect, qualitative data are described in textual formats namely generated field notes, transcripts, and audio recordings. Quantitative research, on the other hand, seeks to confirm a hypothesis about issues, where integrated instruments employ a more rigid approach to classifying the populations’ responses. The advantage of rigidity is that it facilitates meaningful comparisons of responses from the study population. The participant’s responses do not affect the researcher’s question. It uses highly structured methods that include surveys, questionnaires, and structured observations. Its analytical objectives are centered on quantifying variations, description of the population’s characteristics and predicting underlying interactions. The data format presented in quantitative data collection is numerical where closed-ended questions are mostly used. Question 5: Description of the qualitative and quantitative data Analysis methods Qualitative data analysis differs to a greater degree where each difference exhibits the data analyst’s orientation as an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the results. Simply put, it is non-statistical strategy, where its approach is attuned to available concrete material. In this respect, the analysis focuses on meaning as opposed to quantifiable occurrence (Lichtman, 2006). The study of analyzing the data is in-depth; lacking prearranged directions. In qualitative data analysis, a high sensitivity to context is eminent where attention is given to the researcher’s values. The methods used in analyzing data are described by the continual interplay between analysis and theory – where patterns are discoverable and causal links are identified in the course of the analysis. In quantitative data analysis, however, the primary approach to data analysis is majorly statistical and assumes a tabulated structure. Additionally, it facilitates the reporting of summary results in numerical terms, with a specified level of self-assurance. Evidently, a quantitative analysis method is based on statistical analysis where a number of mathematical techniques, in which, evaluations are easily understood (Gelo, Braakmann and Benetka, 2008). These calculations are referred to as descriptive statistics – essential in describing raw data forms. These includes; frequencies or numerical counts, variability, central tendency and the percentages. The objective of statistical analysis is aimed at finding structure in the data. Question 6: Findings The findings of qualitative research cannot be autonomously used and are not conclusive in making generalization. This research approach acquires particular findings that cannot be generalized (Johnson and Christensen, 2008 p. 34). Contrary to this paradigm, it is instrumental in developing a detailed understanding of certain issued and is often a favored rationale in decision-making. Consequently, the findings in qualitative data can be shifted to individuals that share similar characteristics to those in the study population. In this way, a rich and complex understanding is achieved in a specific social context. As such, it is prioritized over eliciting data obtained from generalized population data. Quantitative findings are normally descriptive in natures that are conclusive in limited numerical frameworks (Lichtman, 2006). In some cases, generalized findings may be applied to similar study population. Simply put, the results can be incorporated in making prediction about the study feature where the results can be controlled mathematically in making predictions, a phenomenon known as inferential study. The results obtained from a previous study can be compared to present surveys. Task 2 Grounded theory (GT) is simply a logically consistent sets of data and analytical approaches with an objective of the developing a theory. GT consolidates a number of inductive approaches for data analysis. This approach offers a systematic procedure that shapes rich qualitative objects. It consolidates two contrasting and competing concepts of the sociology, as showcased by Strauss and Glaser (Glaser et al., 1967). Through their analysis of dying patients, Strauss and Glaser created a systematic methodological approach for studying similar cases (Charmaz, 2006). Distinguishing attributes of grounded theory are; i. The creation of middle-range theories that explicate processes and behaviors; ii. Concurrent involvement in data collection and analysis stages; iii. Writing analytical notes with an aim of explicating and filling out different categories; iv. Theoretical sampling v. Delaying literature review. This theory connects theoretical development and research process in various paradigms. It eliminates (blurs) the boundaries between data analysis and data collection, wherein, it undermines definitions of qualitative research and asserts quantitative research as a thorough and systematic process (Charmaz, 2006). Its continuation presents a proffered process for the researchers where it creates important conclusions from the collected data. How then does this approach fair with other qualitative research methodologies? GT connects interpretative discussions with traditional positivist hypothesis since they are instrumental in the discovering meaning of the population (Birks & Mills, 2011). Moreover, the theory could be distinguished from other qualitative method attributed to its objective of generating theory in addition to its holistic approach to research. When compared with phenomenology, phenomenology is created to unearth phenomena and understand overlooked issues, while offering a rich description that enhances understanding. Contrariwise, when compared to thematic analysis, grounded theory is a methodology that has inbuilt theoretical underpinnings where it advocates the use of specific research questions, contrary to the former. In formulating theory it could use comparative analysis in which divergent groups of the population are compared, in which, their differences could be a basis for the theory; formal and substantive theory (Glaser et al., 1967). The theory is subsequently tested against other groups. Constant comparative analysis, on the other hand, codes data sufficient enough to generate hypotheses and various research categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Theoretical sampling necessitates the inclusion of limited groups to utilize one category effectively. Its saturation levels are based on the degree of theory generation and saturation extent (Glaser et al., 1967). Task 3 What if humans lived healthy lives and took precautions in safeguarding illness and diseases? Despite my love for science of helping people, the lack of myriad opportunities in other areas such as medicine has constantly bothered. As such, I sought a professional that reached out to a large population offering continuous challenge under different setting. Knowing that I was intrigued by the very basis of health, my thoughts delved into public health profession. My desire for public health emanated from a class that was offered by the School of Public health in my hometown. As I attentively listened to the professionals discussing contemporary health problems, I was carried away by its research approach to critical human health issues. Over the years, I have continued to learn new aspects both from class work and field work. As a young adult, I am intrigued with pursuing the health professional given its importance in the contemporary society. Nothing makes me happy than addressing health issues effectively in various human aspects. Tentatively, provisioning health care not only improves my interpersonal communication, but it will also equip me with fast hand knowledge in dealing with various study populations. Research theories have been of particular interests to me; hence I would want to explore the future potential of public health research. As dynamic individuals, I believe that research work in health services will present different challenges that will broaden my understanding of the pertinent subjects. Additionally, an in-depth analysis of various populations will significantly improve my problem-solving skills, as well as, make the society a better place to live in. Moreover, serving the community will better enhance the lives of the people living in such communities. I intend to change the lives of many people affected by public health. References  Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (6 th ed). Boston: Pearson Education Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practice guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Given, L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol.2, pp.697‐698. Glaser, B., & Strauss, L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: beyond the debate. Integrated Psychological Behavior, 42, 266–290 Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maxwell, J.A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry.16(6): 475– 482. Strauss, L., and Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Read More