Qualitative Research or Quantitative Research Essay

Both qualitative and numeric explore rules nourish their specific qualities which make them useful to a researcher, however in the logical argument of this presently analyze I will explain why, for several reasons, qualitative research is better. As both modes operate within dissimilar assumptions, it is most-valuable to stem criticism for each installs respective nonional base in order to adequately judge them. In the style of this essay I will highlight each methods theoretical assumptions and then I will assess each method by pointing out their positive and negative factors.The underlying assumption freighter qualitative research is that the entire subject needs to be examined in order to understand the phenomenon. Quantitative research however, places importance in assemblage and analyzing data from parts of a trend and in so doing, base miss authoritative aspects which could lead to a complete understanding of the strong phenomenon.Theres no such thing as qua litative data. Everything is either 1 or 0(Fred Kerlinger 1999)Unlike quantifiable research, there is no everyplacearching framework for how qualitative research should be conducted rather each showcase of qualitative research is guided by the particular philosophical stances that ar taken in relation by the research to each phenomenon (Miles & Huberman 1994, p. 40) This enables qualitative research to be untold voluminous with the subject at contribute whereas three-figure research has the same rules which it applies to every subject outlet, thus reservation it easier to overlook important evidence.As the researcher using qualitative methods becomes all told immersed in the data collection phase of the project, he himself actually get the data collection tool as opposed to the questionnaires and equipment employ by quantitative researchers, it allows him to gain a better understanding of the subject matter as a whole and observe the subject in its deliver environment Human behaviour is significantly influenced by the setting in which it occurs thus one mustiness study that behaviour in situations. The sensible setting e.g., schedules, space, pay, and rewards and the internalized notions of norms, traditions, roles, and values atomic number 18 crucial contextual variables. Research must be conducted in the setting where allthe contextual variables are operating. (Marshall & Rossman 1980)Quantitative research disregards these valuable contextual variables as most of the work is done in a laboratory with the researcher using the principles of impartiality and an objective enactment of the subject.In conclusion, qualitative research is better than quantitative research because it places reduce upon the subject itself by studying it in an in-depth manner and becoming involved with it on a personal direct. Quantitative research keeps a direct of impartiality with the subject matter thus fashioning it neglect important contextual factors cruci al to the research itself.1.Using British Election Study data for example, why is it problematic to do quantitative research on ethnic minorities?It is problematic to do quantitative research on ethnic minorities because the metre deviation is so small, thus the observations are spread out over a very small sample which would not straightly personify the entire ethnic radical. There is such a small validated percent that subjects would need to be sharpened as they are unlikely to be caught during random sampling.2.Providing either hypothetical and/or published examples, how accurate is it to differentiate content outline as a quantitative method?It is sooner accurate to articulate content abbreviation as a quantitative method for several reasons. The comparisons of their theoretical patterns are numerous and hence it has more in common with quantitative than qualitative methods. In the course of this short essay I will explain why it is accurate to label content analysis as a quantitative method by using an example of research employing content analysis and pointing out the similarities in the midst of the two. sate analysis has been described asAny technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages (Holsti 1969 p. 14)Compare this with a definition of quantitative researchThe aim is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. It is objective assembleks precise measurement & analysis of target concepts. (Miles& Huberman 1994, p. 40)Both of these definitions contain the term objective, which shows that both of the methods share the core aspect of non-interference with subjectsContent analysis is often referred to as an unobtrusive method(Bryman 2008, p. 289)This key concept lies at the heart of both content analysis and quantitative research methods, it is an unmistakable similarity.In Shephards study of the dynamics b etween the party, candidates and constituencies he used content analysis on party leaflets to spot recurring trends. His method (content analysis) bears a striking resemblance to quantitative research, for example both methods begin with hypotheses and theories, Shephard choosing to ask whether emphasis in leaflets matches the profile of the constituents. He then do two hypotheses stating that -the higher the unemployment rate the higher the emphasis on arguments and job creation and the higher the home ownership, the higher the emphasis on interest conference rates and mortgages. Quantitative research methods also start off with hypotheses and theories therefore it is clear to see that content analysis could be labelled quantitative due to this fact.Furthermore, both methods of research reserve a high level of transparency because they are both highly structured and systematic in their approach. Shephard stated that to conduct his analysis objectively and systematically (two quantitative features) that he had to identify his sample, sample period, text/images and what words and images to count. This shows that both content analysis and quantitative research share epistemologically grounded beliefs about what constitutes acceptable knowledge (Bryman 2008, p. 155)In conclusion, it is accurate to label content analysis as a quantitative method due to the fact that it shares mevery features in common with quantitative research. These include, maintaining objectivity during the study, transparency and a systematic approach to research. These features indicate that content analysis is grounded in the same theoretical processes and philosophy as quantitative research.3.Providing examples of counsel group research from the literature, discuss the advantages and single outs of focal point groups. concenter groups are a highly useful method of data collection but they have many advantages and disadvantages. I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of fo cus groups in this essay and also consider real-life examples of focus group research to illustrate this.Focus groups can provide an insight into the way in which bulk send and interpret knowledge as well as how people reckon information. This is especially useful in the study of audience reception- how audiences receive different kinds of television and radio programmes, etc. Such a study was conducted by Morley in 1980 into how Nationwide, a popular television programme at the time, was have by specific groups of people. He noticed that different groups had different interpretations of the programmes which they had watched, which indicated that the meat of the programme was based in the way it was watched and interpreted not in the programme itself. (Bryman 2008, 475) This provides more information that a simple interview because the interviewee has the woof to respond to fellow participants and argue with them, leading the researcher to gain a greater insight into why they hold such beliefs and how strongly they discover about them.Another advantage of focus groups is that they can provide a more open environment to respond to questions by the way in which they are selected prior to the event. For example, Kitzinger notes in her research on human immunodeficiency virus that any attempts at discussions about risks for gay men were blocked out by strong homophobic clamouring amongst homophobic men. (Kitzinger 1994b in Bloor, et al 2001, p. 20) and then focus groups consisting of specific groups such as male prostitutes, retirement monastic order members, etc, provided a more relaxed environment in which views could be openly discussed without hero-worship of existence criticised for ones beliefs. In addition to this, organising groups consisting of only HIV positive people meant that disclosure of a potentially stigmatising status could be overcome. (Bloor 2001 p. 23)However focus groups also have their disadvantages, the most prominent one being t he role of the researcher within the discussion- the way in which the focus group is designed, the participants selected to take part, where the meeting takes place, how the questions are worded and delivered and who the instigator is may affect the responses which are obtained.This raisesthe question over the validity of the results as the researcher has less reserve over a focus group than he would over a one on one interview with respondents possibly talking amongst themselves on irrelevant issues, or the simple fact that they may get tire or have personality issues with other members of the group. (Walvis 2003 p. 405)Another disadvantage of focus groups is the disposition of researchers to (either consciously or subconsciously) pick groups so that they align with pre-determined beliefs about a subject. One famous example of this was when Coca-Cola launched New Coke in 1985 contempt the fact that the focus groups had made it explicit that they would not like to see the tradit ional coke removed(p) from the shelves. (Pendergast 1993 and Greising 1998)The taste-tests however had proved positive, but they had not been asked the vital question about how they would feel if traditional coke was removed from the shelves, this positive response was more in line with how the CEO of Coca-Cola tangle about the product and it was launched based on the back of poorly conducted focus groups. The subsequent product was a massive failure and lost Coca-Cola a large share of the market it was obvious that Coca-Cola had spent too much time and money on the plan to dismiss it on the results from focus group research at the last minute.One final disadvantage of focus groups is their limited spread of views Morgan (1998) suggests that the average size of a group should be around six to ten people. This clearly cannot be lesson of the population as a whole- Stephen Fisher and Robert Andersen (2005) state that in order to have a representative sample for one million people y ou would need, with a margin of error of 5%, 384 participants.BibliographyBloor, M. et al. (2001) Focus Groups in cordial Research (London Sage).Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods (2nd Ed.) (Oxford Oxford University Press).Greising, D. (1998) Id Like the adult male to Buy a Coke The Life and Leadership of Robert Goizueta (New York Wiley)Holsti, O.R (1969) Content psychoanalysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley)Kerlinger, F. Foundations of Behavioural Research (Nova York Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965)Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1980). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA Sage.Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 40). Qualitative Data AnalysisPendergast, M. (1993) For God, Country and Coca-Cola The Unauthorised history of the domain of a functions Most Popular Soft Drink (London Weidenfeld & Nicholson)Shephard, M. (2007) quadruple Audiences, Multiple Messages? An Exploration of the Dynamics between the Party, the Candidates and the Various Constituencies, ledger of Elections, Public suasion and PartiesWalvis, T.H (2003), Avoiding advertising research disaster Advertising and the uncertainty principle, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 6