ISSUES INVOLVED WHEN USING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODOLIGIES IN RESEARCH
Introduction
In doing a research study it is important that the researcher would have the ability to efficiently determine the best methodologies to be used in order to ensure that the objective and purpose of the research will be met. Through the appropriate methodologies, researches made will be able to have a direction to follow in order to gather the pertinent information and to be able to establish a valid conclusion that would answer the problems posited in the research. In addition, good methodologies will also enable the researcher to provide plausible recommendation to the problems stated. Traditionally, research methodologies are differentiated between quantitative and qualitative approaches. The two types of research methodologies have different philosophical roots (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). Primarily, the main goal of this paper is to determine the issue involved when using quantitative and qualitative methodologies in research. The first part of the discussion will provide the general discussion regarding quantitative and qualitative research methods and the second paper will be the discussion of different approaches used in a specific situation. In this case, the paper will discuss
Differences of Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Various authors has been able to different the contexts of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. According to Newman and Benz (1998), in line with virtual concept, all qualitative researchers, regardless of their theoretical differences, reflect some sort of individual phenomenological perspective. On one hand, most quantitative research approaches, regardless of their theoretical differences, tend to emphasize that there is a common reality on which people can agree (Newman & Benz, 1998:2). Such variations in basic philosophical assumptions about the nature of experience lead qualitative and quantitative researchers to use different methods in their search for knowledge. The assumption, that there is a common reality amongst people, directs quantitative researchers to use objective methods to search for knowledge (Newman and Benz, 1998). On the other hand, qualitative researchers, who believe that there is no “objective” reality, reject objective methods and claim that subjective methods are the best way to understand reality (Newman and Benz, 1998).
Quantitative researchers are generally rooted in positivist paradigms and aim to devise “universal theory” to explain social phenomena (Cohen et al., 2000: 23). Quantitative researchers try to devise general theories of human behaviour and to validate them through the use of increasingly complex research methodologies which, some believe, push them further and further from the experience and understanding of the everyday world and into a world of abstraction (Cohen et al., 2000: 23).
Therefore, generalisation is part of the goal of quantitative research, which consequently requires medium/large-scale research. Experiments and surveys the common strategies of inquiry. Furthermore, data are collected by using predetermined instruments, closed questions, and result in numeric data. The use of statistical tests is a common way to analyse the data (Creswell, 2003).
In contrast, qualitative researchers emphasise individuals’ interpretation of the world. The aim of investigation is not to develop a general theory but to understand how this glossing of reality goes on at one time and in one place and compare it with what goes on in different times and places. Thus theory becomes sets of meanings which yield insight and understanding of people’s behaviour. (Cohen et al., 2000: 23). Because of the assumption that reality is subjective and meanings are individual in nature, qualitative researchers usually conduct small-scale research and employ open questions to allow participants to describe or express their individual meanings (Cohen et al., 2000; Creswell, 2003).
The dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative research continues with debates which argue which method is more appropriate: the deductive methods, which are used by quantitative researchers; or the inductive methods, which are chosen by qualitative researchers (Newman and Benz, 1998). However, most contend that both quantitative and qualitative approaches have both strengths and weaknesses.
The investigation of society or a social system in quantitative research which is conducted in a large-scale study, enables researchers to make generalisations and provide descriptions of macro social structures (Mays & Pope. 2000) or to discover the prevalence of problem (Trochim, 2002). Nevertheless, it can be argued that the breadth of descriptions, which results from quantitative research, at the same time, sacrifices the detailed descriptions of the individual’s meaning of his/her experience (Mays & Pope, 2002).
In addition, the reduction of social phenomena into variables in quantitative research is too simplistic to examine the complexity of the social issues being addressed and would lead to a lack of accuracy in investigating the complexity of experience (Niglas, 2000). On the other hand, qualitative research, which is characterised by “subjectivity”, enables researchers to benefit from the discovery of individual meaning or the perspective of the people that they study (Creswell, 2003). Qualitative research also provides detailed descriptions in context, which allow researchers to gain a better understanding of behaviour. Thus an important contribution of descriptive details for the ethnographer is to the mapping out of a context for the understanding of subjects’ interpretations of what is going on and for the researcher to produce analyses and explanations which do justice to the milieu in which his or her observations and interviews are conducted. (Robson, 2002)
Furthermore, the tendency to use an open and unstructured strategy in qualitative research gives opportunities for participants to elicit issues which might be useful in understanding social phenomena, but have not been thought of by the researcher beforehand (Holliday, 2002). However, the foci on individuals’ meaning and experience in qualitative research, which aim for a deeper understanding of the complexity of social phenomena, can also have a consequence on the sacrifice of the “breadth of description” and generalisability of findings (Creswell, 2003). Furthermore, qualitative research may also suffer from a lack of precision in terms of “the extent” to which a category might be present (Trochim, 2002).
Hence, it can be argued that that one type of research methodology should not be seen as superior to the other because both quantitative and qualitative approaches have strengths and weaknesses. They provide a different type of contribution in the effort of search for knowledge.
Methodologies Used in Specific Clinical Practice
As mentioned different methodologies are used in various studies, specifically those used in each clinical practice or area. One clinical practice that has been given attention by various scholars, especially the neuroscientists is regarding Parkinson’s disease. Accordingly, Parkinson’s disease is known as a degenerative and chronic disease which leads to balance disorders, slowness, difficulty in walking and tremors. The Parkinson’s disease is the result of the loss of dopamine-producing nerve cells in the brain. Neuroscientists are trying to find ways on helping those individuals with the disease to improve their motor function and one of these is their studies about different treatment used for individuals with Parkinson’s disease.
Clinical studies may include the use of different approaches of qualitative and quantitative research studies. Quantitative studies include the single-subject design, correlational studies and other statistical approach, surveys, quasi experimental method, experimental method while qualitative approaches include ethnography, grounded theory and case study.
For instance, in a study conducted by Tamir, Dickstein and Huberman (2007), entitled “Integration of motor imagery and physical practice in group treatment applied to subjects with Parkinson’s disease.” In this study, the main goal is to know whether the application of motor imagery practice in treating Parkinson’s disease can be considered as a novel treatment method for improving motor function of the patient. In this regard, the study compare group treatment through the use of a combination motor imagery and physical practice using only physical practice in the subjects with Parkinson’s Disease. It can be said that the researchers have been able to use both qualitative (case study) and quantitative (comparison, experimental) approaches. Using this method, the researchers studied the cases of the chosen respondents or patients and conduct an experiment and observation method to meet the objective of the paper. They use experimental groups and treated them with both real practice and imagery while the control group only received physical exercises. Using such research approach, the combined treatment group showed significantly faster movement performance than the control group. In addition, the experimental subjects also show higher gains in terms of the mental and motor subsets of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the cognitive tests. Through the effective use of this research method, the study found that the integration of the real practice and motor imagery may be effective in terms of treating Parkinson’s disease, specifically for reducing the bradykinesia. The application of such treatment regime permits for the extension of practice time with low cost and negligible risk (Tamir, Dickstein & Huberman, 2007)
In a prospective cohort study conducted by Logroscino and his colleague (2006), the researchers has been able to use quantitative research, to examine the relationship between Parkinson’s Disease and physical activity among 10, 714 men form the Harvard Alumni Health Study who were diagnosed as free of self-reported PD in 1988. The quantitative approach in this study has been able to used multivariate approach or analyses to know the relative risks for PD associated with physical activity and find that physical activity does not show any significant associations in terms of lowering the risk of Parkinson’s disease. However, it is also noted that these study have only considered small number of individuals with Parkinson’s disease which becomes the number one limitation of the study (Logroscino et al, 2006).
In the study conducted by Caglar and his colleague (2005), entitled “Effects of home exercises on motor performance in patients with Parkinson’s disease”, the researchers has been able to use the prospective blinded study which is an experimental study under quantitative approach. In order to investigate the effect of home exercises in line with the motor function of individuals with Parkinson’s disease, the researcher opted to use this quantitative method with allocation of patients in two experimental groups and control groups by alternative weeks. Thirty respondents were recruited from a movement disorders outpatient clinic of Cerrahpasa School of Medicine and these individuals were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The researcher classified each of the patients as Hoehn and Yahr Grades I, II and III.
In this study, the individuals with PD who has been able to fulfil the inclusion criteria were recruited by the researchers to be part of the study. Each of these patients was assessed at the end of the first month and second moth, after the baseline assessment. Individuals were classified intro two groups with 30 members. The group in the first and third week were placed in the exercise group and second and fourth week members were in the control group. In this study, those patients in the exercise group were provided a schedule of exercises to be performed at home and the second group did not receive such treatment. As the first group followed the home exercise program, the patients or members of this group showed development in walking 10-20 m. Herein, time elapsed to complete such walking around a chair as well as the length of the first pace, and improvement in the motor performance of both hands. Through the use of quantitative (experimental) approach, the researchers concluded that a home-based rehabilitation programme for Parkinson’s disease patients has been able to help in improving the motor performance of the individuals compared to patients who did not provided with the exercise programme (Caglar et al, 2005).
Other studies were conducted, this time, in terms of comparing the effects of a physiotherapist supervised exercise program and self-supervised home exercise program on the motor symptoms of PD (Lun et al, 2005). In this study, the researchers have been able to use qualitative and quantitative approach through the prospective single blinded clinical trial to compare the two exercise programs in motor symptoms in PD patients. In this study, the researchers include nineteen patients (13 men and 6 women with a mean age of 65+/-8 years) with Hoehn and Yahr Stages 2 to 3. These patients were grouped into home grouped and physiotherapy (PT group). The patients were self-selected into an 8-week exercise treatment. The study also considered the of the outcome measurement which is Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Motor subsection score (UPDRSm). On the other hand, the study also uses UPDRS Total score, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Timed Up and Go Test and Berg Balance Scale, for secondary result measurements. All the outcome was evaluated at baseline and at 8 and 16 weeks after the study began. The researchers of this study were blinded to the respondent’s treatment group. The quantitative method used in the study was the Bonferroni-corrected paired Student’s t test. Such t-test was utilised to assess and examine the transformation in the UPDRSm from baseline to 8 weeks. In this study, the researchers also considered 95% confidence intervals, for the transformation in terms of the secondary result measurements after the research started 8 weeks.
In this study, the researchers have found that there was an equal and statistically relative decrease in the UPDRSm from the research baseline to 8 weeks in both Homed groups and PT groups and they also found that in terms of the transformation of the secondary outcome measures, there was no difference in the 95% Confidence interval. Through the use of both qualitative (case study) and quantitative (t-test and blinded clinical trial), the researcher have concluded that self-supervised exercise approach have similar effectiveness like physiotherapist-supervised exercise approach in enhancing and developing motor symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease patients. Such finding is noted to be essential in the counselling of PD patients in terms of adjunctive treatment of motor functions of Parkinson’s disease with exercise (Lun et al, 2005).
Analysis shows that each of the given studies has been able to use different qualitative and quantitative methodologies to meet the objectives and purpose of the research. Analysis shows that in a study of the exercise treatment in Parkinson’s disease, most of the neuroscientists used prospective clinical study, prospective single blinded clinical trial, correlational study, experimental study, case study and t-test study. Each of the researchers attempted to use specific study method to ensure that they will be able to provide pertinent information and derived pertinent conclusion and recommendation.
Conclusion
All in all, it can be said that if neuroscientists and other scholars or individual decides to conduct a neuroscience research, one of the important thing to consider is to determine the most suitable methodologies to be used. This includes the identification of the most appropriate type of research approach from qualitative to quantitative. This is vital in conducting a research since this will be the one to ensure that the research is really having a pertinent data and effective approach that can be used to attain the main goal or purpose of the research. In the case of clinical studies, the researcher must be able to apply each method in the most appropriate manner since clinical studies is important in providing new and evident ideas on how to treat specific disease like Parkinson’s Disease.
Given that both qualitative and quantitative research approaches have their strengths and weaknesses and that they provide a different type of contribution, it can be argued that quantitative and qualitative research should not be an exclusive choice. Hammersley (1992), Silverman (1997), and Newman and Benz (1998) advise that the decision to adopt certain methodology by the researcher needs to be determined by considering the research purposes
Reference
Caglar, AT, Gurses, HM, Mutluav, FK and Kiziltan, G. (2005). Effects of home exercises on motor performance in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clinical Rehabilitation, 19(8): 870-877.
Creswell. J.W. (2003) Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Cohen, et al., (2000). Legal Research in a Nutshell, (7th ed.), St. Paul, West.
Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications Ltd, London, p. 1-7
Logroscino, G, Sesso, HD, Paffenbarger, RS Jr, and Lee, IM (2006). Physical activity and risk of Parkinson’s disease: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Neurolo Nurosurg Psychiatry, 77(12): 1318-1322.
Lun, V, Pullan, N, Labelle, N, Adams, C and Suchowersky, O (2005). Comparison of the effects of a self-supervised home exercise program with a physiotherapist-supervised exercise program on the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorder, 20(8): 971-975.
Mays, N. and Pope, C. (2000) Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320, pp.50-52
Newman, I. and Benz, C. R. (1998), Qualitative – Quantitative Research Methodology – Exploring the Interactive Continuum, Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 9, 65 – 67.
Niglas, K. (2000). Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh.
Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research (2nd Ed.), Oxford, Blackwell.
Tamir, R., Dickstein, R. and Huberman, M. (2007). Integration of motor imagery and physical practice in group treatment applied to subjects with Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 21(1):68-75.
Trochim, W.M. (2002) Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd Ed.), Ohio, Atomic Dog Publishing.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment