Differences Of Qualitative And Quantitative And Rational Research PdfBy Ariana T. In and pdf 29.04.2021 at 07:22 9 min read
File Name: differences of qualitative and quantitative and rational research .zip
- EDD-904: Understanding & Using Data
- What is content analysis and how can you use it in your research?
- What is content analysis and how can you use it in your research?
Your goal in conducting quantitative research study is to determine the relationship between one thing [an independent variable] and another [a dependent or outcome variable] within a population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive [subjects usually measured once] or experimental [subjects measured before and after a treatment]. A descriptive study establishes only associations between variables; an experimental study establishes causality.
EDD-904: Understanding & Using Data
Your contribution can help change lives. Donate now. Sixteen training modules for teaching core skills. Learn more. Using qualitative assessment methods rather than purely data-based information is crucial to understanding many community issues and needs. Numbers work well to show comparisons, progress, an statistics of community efforts, but they cannot express motives, opinions, feelings, or relationships. This section discusses how to use qualitative assessment methods and when to implement them into communtiy planning.
They are often used when you need the subtleties behind the numbers — the feelings, small actions, or pieces of community history that affect the current situation. There are two major scientific ways of gathering information: quantitative methods and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are those that express their results in numbers. That way, they can compare apples to apples — everything or everyone is measured by the same standard.
Quantitative measures are often demanded by policy makers; they are considered trustworthy because their results can be measured against one another, and because they leave less room for bias. When you observe a complex situation, you may see a number of different aspects of it, and a number of ways in which it could be interpreted. As a result, researchers and policymakers sometimes see qualitative methods as less accurate and less legitimate than quantitative ones.
Qualitative and quantitative methods are, in fact, complementary. Often, the most accurate information is obtained when several varieties of each method are used. There are a number of qualitative methods that can be used in assessment of issues or community needs. A special case of group interviewing is a focus group.
This is a group of about people, led by a trained facilitator, assembled to answer a specific question or questions. If trained facilitators are available, focus groups can be a good way to get accurate information about an issue.
Many types of qualitative information are turned into numerical results, although not always accurately. The transformation may miss important details, or the information may simply be too complex to fit easily into numerical constraints, unless you can create a computer model or similar number-based framework that has the capacity to take in an enormous amount of variety. There are many software programs — NVivo and Atlas. Since qualitative methods give you results that are not always easy to compare, or even to check for accuracy, people who want hard and fast evidence often see them as suspect.
In fact, both quantitative and qualitative measures are important and necessary, depending on the situation. The problem is convincing those who need to be convinced — policymakers, funders, etc.
There is a debate in the research community about how to judge qualitative methods. Some say they should be evaluated by the same standards as quantitative methods. Others maintain that, because they are intrinsically different from quantitative methods, qualitative methods need a set of standards that take into account their philosophical base and the kind of information they yield.
The British government, for instance, has developed a framework for demonstrating qualitative reliability, which includes a set of 18 questions that a qualitative assessment or study should be subjected to see Tool 1. Guidelines that can help you argue for the reliability of your qualitative assessment include:. Scientists, for instance, aim to be objective, and to understand the way things really are, rather than the way the scientists or others want them to be, or think they might be.
A subjective observation, statement, opinion, or research finding, on the other hand, is based on the thoughts and assumptions of the person issuing it. A researcher may be so appalled by the conditions in neighborhoods where violence is rampant that she may begin to feel that violence is in fact the only rational response, and slant her research in that direction.
Especially in community assessment, objectivity is vitally important. Objectivity in looking at the community will help you understand how to most effectively address issues, maximize and use assets, and solve problems. Understanding your own subjective reactions — to difficult conditions, to particular individuals, to cultural practices — will help you to screen them out, thereby increasing the reliability of your findings. The basic reason to use qualitative methods is that there are some kinds of questions and some dimensions of community assessment that can be better addressed by them than by quantitative methods.
Since it may be hard to convince policymakers and others that qualitative methods are useful, however, why bother to use them at all? Some of the major reasons:. Clearly, there are times when quantitative research will give you the information you need.
So when do you use qualitative methods? A number of reasons are possible:. Most of these guidelines hold equally for using quantitative methods as well.
You may remember that this is also one of the guidelines for qualitative reliability. There are many ways to approach a community assessment, and, consequently, many questions you might choose to start your assessment with. Be aware of what you can do with the resources you have.
In choosing your method, be aware also that, in some cases, quantitative methods may be more appropriate and more likely to tell you what you want to know. With qualitative methods, where contact is often personal, the question of who carries them out can be very important.
Often, it makes more sense to train members of the population or others who are known and trusted by — or at least familiar to, in their behavior, dress, and speech —those who are being asked to contribute their opinions and observations. Data collectors should be fluent in the language and culture of those they are interviewing.
It may be that you want to hear from all sectors of the community, but some issues or circumstances demand more specific informants.
Some possible interview subjects may be public officials, members of a specific population or cultural group, people from a particular geographic area, or people with certain characteristics parents of young children, individuals with disabilities, males , people with high blood pressure. Knowing whom you need to ask extends to any method in which you talk directly to people — focus groups, large community meetings, etc. Focus groups used by marketers are chosen extremely carefully, for example, with age, gender, income, place of residence, and even such factors as favored leisure activities considered.
Observation may or may not involve people. If it does, the question may not be whom you want to observe, but rather what activity or situation you want to observe. As mentioned above, interviews can be structured or unstructured.
In a strictly structured interview, the same questions in the same order are asked of everyone, with relatively little room for wandering off the specific topic. Semi-structured interviews may also be based on a list of specific questions, but — while trying to make sure that the interviewee answers all of them — the interviewer may pursue interesting avenues, or encourage the interviewee to talk about other related issues. An unstructured interview is likely to be more relaxed — more like a conversation than a formal interview.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. A structured interview may make the interviewee focus in on the questions and the interview process, take it more seriously, and thus provide excellent information. Because everyone is interviewed in the same way, a structured interview may be — or at least may look — reliable. It may also make an interviewee nervous, emphasize the differences between him and the interviewer, and lead to incomplete or less-than-truthful answers.
A semi- or unstructured interview may allow the interviewee to be more relaxed, and thus more forthcoming. It also, in the hands of an inexperienced or indecisive interviewer, may allow an interviewee to get sidetracked and never get back to the original questions.
The author has conducted all three types of interviews, and has found that semi-structured interviews — having clear questions and goals for the interview, but conducting it in an informal way, with room for pursuing tangents and some simple friendly conversation — is generally productive.
The following guidelines for interviewing reflect that view. Some interviewees can manage one-word answers to nearly any question. They might answer "What was participating in the program like? If it gets you another one-word answer, keep probing, unless you sense that the person is getting angry or frustrated. But be aware that some people are simply quieter — or less reflective — than others. You may never get much more than one-word answers from them. Every other word reminds him of something else — another story — and he gets continually sidetracked, never finishing the story of the dog, or any of the others, either.
Beware the Curse of the Three-Legged Dog: gently but firmly direct people back to the topic if they get too far afield. Group interviews are both similar to and different from individual ones. As with other methods, group interviews have advantages and disadvantages.
The former include using the energy of the group to generate more information than might otherwise be forthcoming. Members may stimulate one another to come up with more and more useful material, as their thinking is prodded by the memories and conclusions of others.
They can also act as a check on the accuracy of the information provided. In addition, the presence of other, often familiar, interviewees may help to break down shyness or nervousness, and create a relaxed atmosphere in which everyone feels comfortable talking. The skills of the interviewer at making people comfortable — at least partially by being comfortable herself — are important here. With these potential positives come the possible negatives of conflict, antagonism, or dislike among group members, as well as other negative feelings or history that can disrupt or twist discussion and make an interview all but useless.
There are also problems that can arise from members of the group being too friendly: they may spend too much time in chit-chat, and have trouble focusing on the questions at hand. Group interviews may be useful when resources — and, as a result, interviewers — are limited, or when there are a large number of people who should be, or would like to be, interviewed. A direct observation to see how people use a public park, for instance, might consist of one or more observers simply sitting in one place or walking around the park for several hours, or even several days.
Observers might come back at different times of day, on different days, or at different times of year, in order to understand as much as possible of what goes on in the park. They might occasionally ask questions of people using the park, but in as low-key and unobtrusive a way as possible, not identifying themselves as researchers.
Some kinds of direct observation — those where people are observed in situations they think are private — have the potential of violating privacy. In these instances, ethics generally demands that the observer obtain the permission of those being observed.
In laboratory schools, for instance, where teachers are trained and new educational ideas tested, classes are often observed from behind one-way mirrors. In such cases, both the teachers and the parents of the students are generally informed that such observation may happen, and are asked to sign consent forms.
A participant observer in the park above might introduce himself into the activities he observes — a regular volleyball game, winter cross-country skiing, dog walking, in-line skating — and get to know well the people who engage in those activities.
He would also monitor his own feelings and reactions to using the park, in order to better understand how its users feel about it. He would probably ask lots of questions, and might well identify himself as a researcher. An effective participant observer may take a long time in some cases, years to establish himself in this way. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Some marketing firms and corporations employ trend-spotters as participant observers.
What is content analysis and how can you use it in your research?
Published on February 25, by Shona McCombes. Revised on February 8, In your thesis or dissertation, you will have to discuss the methods you used to do your research. The methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research. It should include:.
Published on July 18, by Amy Luo. Revised on February 15, Content analysis is a research method used to identify patterns in recorded communication. To conduct content analysis, you systematically collect data from a set of texts, which can be written, oral, or visual:. Content analysis can be both quantitative focused on counting and measuring and qualitative focused on interpreting and understanding. Table of contents What is content analysis used for? Advantages of content analysis Disadvantages of content analysis How to conduct content analysis.
Researchers often have issues choosing which research method to go with: quantitative or qualitative research methods? Many incorrectly think the two terms can be used interchangeably. Qualitative research is regarded as exploratory and is used to uncover trends in thoughts and opinions, while quantitative research is used to quantify the problem by way of generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics. At the end of this article, you will understand why you should consider using quantitative research instead of qualitative method in your research surveys. Qualitative research is a process of real-life inquiry that aims to understand social phenomena. It is a scientific research method used to gather non-numerical data. Qualitative research focuses on human behavior from a participant's point of view.
What is content analysis and how can you use it in your research?
Your contribution can help change lives. Donate now. Sixteen training modules for teaching core skills.
Researchers often have issues choosing which research method to go with: quantitative or qualitative research methods? Many incorrectly think the two terms can be used interchangeably. Qualitative research is regarded as exploratory and is used to uncover trends in thoughts and opinions, while quantitative research is used to quantify the problem by way of generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics.
What is content analysis used for?
Сьюзан встретилась с ним взглядом и прикусила губу. - Ничего, - выдавила. Но это было не. Терминал Хейла ярко светился. Она забыла его отключить.
Парень загородил ему дорогу. - Подними. Беккер заморгал от неожиданности. Дело принимало дурной оборот. - Ты, часом, не шутишь? - Он был едва ли не на полметра выше этого панка и тяжелее килограммов на двадцать. - С чего это ты взял, что я шучу. Беккер промолчал.
На черном поле светилось небольшое желтое окно, на котором виднелись две строчки: ВРЕМЯ ПОИСКА: 15:09:33 ИСКОМЫЙ ШИФР: Сьюзан недоуменно смотрела на экран. Получалось, что ТРАНСТЕКСТ трудится над шифром больше пятнадцати часов. Она хорошо знала, что процессор перебирает тридцать миллионов паролей в секунду - сто миллиардов в час. Если ТРАНСТЕКСТ до сих пор не дал ответа, значит, пароль насчитывает не менее десяти миллиардов знаков. Полнейшее безумие. - Это невозможно! - воскликнула она. - Вы проверили сигналы ошибки.
Пользуются ли писсуаром в дамском туалете -неважно, главное, что сэкономили на лишней кабинке. Беккер с отвращением оглядел комнату. Грязь, в раковине мутная коричневатая вода. Повсюду разбросаны грязные бумажные полотенца, лужи воды на полу. Старая электрическая сушилка для рук захватана грязными пальцами.
Камера последовала за Халохотом, двинувшимся в направлении жертвы. Внезапно откуда-то появился пожилой человек, подбежал к Танкадо и опустился возле него на колени. Халохот замедлил шаги. Мгновение спустя появились еще двое - тучный мужчина и рыжеволосая женщина. Они также подошли к Танкадо.
И снова Беккер изложил свою проблему: - Si, si, senor. Меня зовут сеньор Ролдан. Буду рад вам помочь. У нас две рыжеволосые.
Сьюзан отвернулась от экрана ВР к боковому монитору.
Одна из проблем, связанных с приемом на работу самых лучших специалистов, коммандер, состоит в том, что иной раз они оказываются умнее. - Молодой человек, - вскипел Стратмор, - я не знаю, откуда вы черпаете свою информацию, но вы переступили все допустимые границы. Вы сейчас же отпустите мисс Флетчер, или я вызову службу безопасности и засажу вас в тюрьму до конца ваших дней. - Вы этого не сделаете, - как ни в чем не бывало сказал Хейл. - Вызов агентов безопасности разрушит все ваши планы.
Чтобы вы меня убили. - Я не собираюсь тебя убивать. Мне нужен только ключ. - Какой ключ.
Никто позволивший себе угрожать жизни моего сотрудника не выйдет отсюда. - Он поднес телефон к уху и рявкнул: - Коммутатор. Соедините меня со службой безопасности. Хейл начал выворачивать шею Сьюзан.