Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Research - Essay Example

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Research Various surveys carried out seek to be ontological, methodological, or epistemological paradigms of research. Ontology seeks to establish whether reality is an objective phenomenon holding truth or reality is constructed through political, social, and gendered meaning or not. Epistemology seeks to establish whether research should remain objective and diverted from what is studied or not. Methodology seeks to establish whether research should manipulate variables to test hypotheses or not. The three paradigms of research often end up being used as either qualitatively or quantitatively in carrying out research. This study therefore seeks to establish the comparison and differences in strengths and weaknesses existing in the qualitative and quantitative research approaches as used in young people and sexual health in the published researches. The qualitative and quantitative methods are sometimes referring to positivism. However the two approaches differ in the following senses: in a quantitative framework, emphasis is placed on the definition and adherence to a protocol of methodology by the researchers. The rigor of the employed methodology assures the required reliability and objectivity in the data. In converse, qualitative researchers do not anticipate all the required methods to be employed in carrying out their research; in place, they actively devise their methods as they progressively carry out their studies. This situation is comparable to a loosely choreographed dance. In relation to the published research, the qualitative research with the focus groups revealed that the participants were performing specific social duties during their interviews, but neither used recall of information nor experiences they had (Hyde et al., 2005, p.2588). It further indicated that there was a virtual absence of group discussion having concentration on their conversations between themselves. This indicated a weakness on this qualitative approach. On the other hand, in the quantitative research that was employed in analyzing the data on unsafe sexual behaviours of the South African youth; the quantitative approach presented findings of a review on the factors perpetuating and promoting unsafe sexual behaviours. It reviews the sexual behaviours of youths from 1990 to 2000 amongst students between ages 14 and 35 (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 149). This indicates the adherence to the protocol of the methodology to be used which is review. Essentially, this points out the strengths of the quantitative approach to research analysis. Additionally, the quantitative approach used the method of review to stay objective and appear removed. The second difference is in terms of the research methodology where in quantitative research it is referred to as positivism with each research finding representing a different set of ontological, methodological and epistemological beliefs (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 149). In contrast, qualitative research method is known as interpretive research (Hyde, et al. 2005, p.2592). Interpretive research has assumptions regarding the existence of reality in thoughts as well as individuals perceptions; they contend the impracticality of objectivity. Instead, they respect the participants’ reality by administering repeated interviews and seeking to verify participants to repeat their cases. They therefore give authority to their participants concerning the study phenomenon. In relation to the published research, the qualitative research approach methodology aimed at exploring post-primary pupils in relation to their perspectives on sex education, sexuality as well as the factors facilitating their sexual knowledge and behaviour. The study had a design including pupils from urban and rural areas single- sex girls, single-sex boys as well as from co- educational schools which involved sampling through interviewing (Hyde et al., 2005, p.2588). From this, it is revealing the strength that more pupils were willing to be part of the participants at the same time revealing a weakness that, the number of willing pupils exceeded the designed structure. To add to that, it was evident that schools were voluntarily timing themselves for the success of the project at their inconveniences. Moreover, the research teams were not guiding the teachers in monitoring how groups were selected. Consequently, they had no control of the focus groups production. The strength of this is the fairness of membership involvement to the focus groups (Hyde et al., 2005, p.2589). Conversely, in the study case of the South African pupils where the research was designed to address the pupils of ages 14 to 35 and further involved a review of papers concerning the studies in the same are in a span of 10 years up to 2000 (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 149). In addition, published and unpublished works, dissertations and reports formed what were employed in the review. This reveals the strengths of the quantitative research thereby indicating consistency in the findings and reliability of such data. However, it has a weakness of concluding results which may be fiction. Another contrast is seen in terms of the methods used in collecting the data for analysis. In qualitative research approach, the methods employed were experiential immersion and collaborative interview in the focus groups. While with quantitative method, the methods which were used to gather the data for analysis were administering structured interviews, observations, experiments and surveys. In relation to the two researches, the qualitative research had immersion interviews conducted in 2003 from October to December and proceeded to January 2004 with the researches operating in pairs (Hyde et al., 2005, p. 2590). A point of strength is shown in terms of all who wanted to participate had the chance to do so without any discrimination. It also allowed for the large groups to be confident in answering their interview questions, however, those in small groups were not very confident and showed fear. Another challenge with the immersion interview is that, larger group participants talk a lot there by challenging transcription of tapes. In addition, consistency was ascertained across all interviews by equipping all the moderatos with interview guides (Hyde et al., 2005, p.2589). However, in the larger groups, participants did not talk together to a greater extent, which made the work of transcribing the tapes more challenging. Contrarily, in the quantitative methods, with structured interviews administered in south Africa for ten years this took long time to gather information for verification but, individuals could quickly decide and answer the questions in the interviews (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 151). However it registers some weaknesses because the interviews conducted in the past ten years being reviewed were subjected to bias and misinterpretation. The time duration is also too long to know what causes unsafe sexes in South Africa. In addition, a difference is depicted in the structure and process; where the quantitative research in South Africa revealed efficiency in determining the structural features of the youth indulging in unsafe sex. On the other hand, the qualitative research approach played more emphasis on the process aspects that were employed by the focus groups (Hyde et al., 2005, p.2590). As if not enough, a difference is revealed by the subjects-youths’ and researchers’ perspective and that quantitative research was always driven by the concerns of the researchers that could be depicted by the time span taken in reviewing the results for ten consecutive years among the South African youth unsafe sexual behaviours (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 153) . Whereas, in the qualitative research approach adopted the participants perspective through the use of immersion interviews to obtain information from the focus groups (Hyde, et al. 2005, p. 2590). The qualitative approach showed the ethnographic potential of their focus groups interviewed; it in noted that, natural groups’ interviews have the potential of capturing certain aspects regarding research ethnographically. It was so in the sense that, through enactment of things that occur naturally and normally like arguing in groups. Contrarily, they naturally elucidate the gap fell short of by the interviews for it has the impact of uniting people and greatly share and give concrete information. Nonetheless, the extent of claiming group neutrality is questionable. This is arrived due to the fact that, some participants aspects like sub-culture relating to intimacy were in the live sense acted out during the interview. This was seen in the manner in which the context of the focus groups got captured to give the information. The quantitative method on the other hand did not show the ethnographic potential of the pupils and their neutrality for they only responded to structure interviews. However, it did not naturally elucidate the gap fell short of by the interviews for it had no impact of uniting people to greatly share and give concrete information among the South African youth (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 156). As if not enough, the qualitative approach revealed the potential of unveiling the respondents vulnerabilities; the focus groups showed the potential of revealing the vulnerabilities. The research revealed that there are interactions where young people gave in their vulnerabilities among the male and that the vulnerabilities got shared with one another. This approach that entailed using the focus groups had the potential to accept vulnerabilities, fears, as well as uncertainties to surface and dominate the focus group perspective (Hyde, et al. 2005, p.2591). As a result it was hard for the young boys to freely share in the discussion on matters to do with the size of their penises. Or to admit being aware about performance anxiety being a source of boys disquiet at this age for instance; as this could lead to one being slugged by their peers. On the other hand, quantitative approach did not show the potential of their interviews revealing the potential of vulnerabilities for the respondents could not share their weaknesses due to lack of such provision in their structured interviews (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 157). The qualitative research approach showed the challenging and dominant views of the groups enhanced by the invigilation of the group members. It is posited in the published research that handling focus groups has got problems with interviewing them as it limit the depth ability of viewpoints as they get silenced with increase in group size and dynamics. (Hyde et al., p.2592) This data contends that, some mavericks may tend to dominate the group thereby thwarting other soft spoken persons. In adopting the qualitative results, the group members get to challenge each other to either validate or invalidate stands in ways which are direct but interviews never challenge authenticity. Conversely, the quantitative result employed in South African youth did not instantly reveal the possible challenges faced by individuals for they continually reviewed the works over the past years and no invigilation was enhanced (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 158). However it had the advantage of revealing self consent as opposed to domination of some members of the focus group. Moreover, in qualitative approach, the focus groups were formed by members who allegedly had common interests; it further points that qualitative research approach participants in the focus groups are not always and wholly homogenous (Hyde, et al. 2005, p.2594). Through forming the focus groups the composition indicated influence dominating a perspective which is representing the focus group. It is revealed by the qualitative result analysis that, however, in many groups there emerged mixtures of opinions with only few sources of such information. It is further noted that, while attempting to explain across group differences, there emerges a theme in the data that, sexual influences were largely as a result of peer influences. The focus group registered variation comparable to the fact that, participants had volunteered and that friends got congregated together in the focus groups. The same research revealed that, rural girls could have been revealed as appearing to be conservatists about their sexuality than urban girls but this was not the case after 1990s. On the other hand, the quantitative research had individuals each giving independent opinion and was essentially affair representation of the youth effects (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 158). To add to that, the research here having been conducted for a longer duration, revealed consistency and validity of their results. Qualitative approach indicated both pitfalls and potential regarding the focus groups’ information exchange. It was also revealed that, with the focus groups data being sliced, cut, and shown in academic papers for evidence, in support of certain phenomenon. Their interactive components form the subjects of analysis for their educational as well as transformational ability. In the course of the study, some focus groups exchanged information within their groups thereby modified their knowledge bases (Hyde et al., p.2594). However, the quantitative approach only highlighted the potential of the individuals’ information revelation but could not easily share with one another hence an impediment in their growth (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 162). The similarities that exist between qualitative and quantitative research processes are viewed as discussed below: First, both qualitative and quantitative debates have the tendency of imposing certain unfair dichotomy which never captures the possible social approaches inquiry. The implication is both debate when framed appear as though they are two alternatives and some unconscious expectations exist (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 155). This appear in the sense that one approach should be appearing inherently more superior than the other; hiding certain drawbacks in both inquiry forms a s well as diverting attention from each other (Hyde et al., p.2595). Both approaches established indicated in the following factors as perpetuating both unsafe sexual behaviours in the South African youth and also from the focus groups interview insights on sexual health of the adolescents: Knowledge and beliefs of the youth about sex Sex intentions Personal factors concerning sex Efficacy of self The sexual benefit costs perceived by youths Interpersonal sexual factors Low personal risks perception by the youth The proximal sexual context Self esteem of the youth Condom use though sex negotiation Peer pressure towards sex Adult youth interactions on sexual matters Media accessibility or inaccessibility The sexual relationship which is coercive and male dominated The environments where the youth live Unavailability of facilities for recreation The culture of the youth and their societies toward sex Poverty influenceSend citation to EasyBibEmail this entryPrint this entrySave this entrTop of Form Another similarity is evident where, when the debate of qualitative-quantitative is framed in terms of data or method, solutions like mixed methods seem to be apparently feasible. But with the debate viewed fully attending to the epistemological variations existing between interpretivism and positivism, what apparently appear is their incompatibility. This essentially indicates that both positivism and interpretivism are not both focused to revealing the uniform truth and that their goals as well as their philosophic premises are distinctly shown. It being suggested that they are complements creates an impression that both the approaches are just variations technically in the same assumptive framework. Moreover, other areas of similarity emerge where the two approaches share in logic triangulation. Here, the findings from qualitative study can be used to check against findings from quantitative studies and the converse is true (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 156). Moreover, it is clearly revealed that, the qualitative results had focus groups providing researchers with opportunities to use quantitative techniques in measuring validity of their data by employing the use of post-interview administration of questionnaire (Hyde et al., p.2597). It is also inherent that qualitative research has the ability to facilitate quantitative research whereby qualitative research provides background information on subjects and contexts of study and acts as a source of hypothesis formation thereby aiding scale construction (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 159). Equally, quantitative research has the capacity to facilitate qualitative research and usually, quantitative research help in choosing subjects for a qualitative investigation (Hyde et al., p.2598). Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches are employed in both cases at some stage where the relationship is to be determined between the macro and micros. They provide a means for bridging the gulf of the macro and micros with qualitative approach tapping feature of large-scale structure of social life of the youths and the qualitative approach addressing small scale aspects of behaviour (Hyde et al., 2005, p.2597). It also imperatively noted that, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are methodologies constructed distinctly as research processes (Eaton, Flisher & Aaro 2003, p. 160). This implies that, the qualitative approach was specifically designed to help in capturing the data about the youths through the use of interview immersion and using the focus groups to attend to such interviews which gave the desired result. On the same note, quantitative approach was also specifically structured and used in the collection of information among the youths of South Africa and it worked out alongside reviewing all the results over the years. Moreover, both approaches to research analysis sought to unveil and present the richest possible data to the reveal what is there for them. And that both revealed causes of youth sexual cases and effects by the methods they employed. It is also revealed that both the research approaches only succeed with the researchers having interests before beginning their research processes. They did this by first determining what they wanted to study and then identified the field of analysis. As if not enough, in both cases they are depicted as starting their research by basing their questions in fields where they are particularly interested. It is further postulated by the two approaches that elements of invalidity, unbiased representations are not appearing in both approaches. By this they have presented accurate information about the situations regarding the youth. If this lacked then in both cases, the method would have lacked control. This focus is pertinent throughout the two researches and aided the researchers to remain neutral and objective and kept control throughout their researches. Bibliography Eaton,L., Flisher, A.J. & Aaro, L.E. 2003, Unsafe sexual behaviour in South African youth’, Social Science & Medicine, 56, pp. 149-165. Hyde, A, Howlett, E, Brady, D & Drennan, J 2005, ‘The focus group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents’, Social Science & Medicine, 61, pp. 2588-2599. Read More