INS311E ASIGNMENT 1

QUESTION: Talk about the variations and parallels between qualitative and
quantitative research techniques.

NAME: ZOVUYO

SURNAME: MTHANYANA

STUDENT NUMBER: 202226052

MODULE CODE: INS311E ASSIGNMENT

DUE DATE: 25 FEBRAURY 2024

LECTURER: DR TAFADZWA MAMBIRAVANA

TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................2

2. WHICH RESEARCH METHOD SHOULD I CHOOSE?........................................3

3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QANTITATIVE RESEARCH

PARADIGMS 3

4. REVIEW OF THE WORKS...................................................................................5

5. EXCELLENT RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY FOR QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH. 6

6. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................6

7. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................8

1
Page
 1. INTRODUCTION

The standard method in the social sciences for a long time was the quantitative
research methodology, which has its roots in the scientific sciences such as biology,
chemistry, physics, and geology. Examining things that could be seen and measured
in some way was its aim. Up until the early 1980s, when proponents of qualitative
and quantitative research hit a new high in their "paradigm wars," quantitative
research was the acknowledged research paradigm in educational research (Guba,
1990; Teddlie & Tichakorn, 1998). Numerous researchers—both qualitative and
quantitative—argued that their method was better in the 1980s. Some researchers
were "purists," which means they argued that the philosophies or worldviews
underlying the two methodologies were so different that they could not be integrated.
This article does not pretend to offer a comprehensive examination and synthesis of
the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research methods. It does,
however, try to highlight the ways in which they diverge from methodological,
ontological, and epistemological perspectives. As such, the study conceptualizes
beliefs regarding the nature of the knowable or reality (ontology), viewpoints on
reality and true knowledge (epistemology), and the method by which a researcher
learns added information. These are meta-theoretical assumptions that are both
quantitative and qualitative (methodology).

To aid business researchers in truly grasping the differences between the qualitative
and quantitative paradigms, a review and synthesis of previously published materials
are utilized. “The decision between qualitative and quantitative research perspectives
has to do with their effectiveness in answering research issues," claims Bryman
(2001: 106). There is a technical difference between the two. Therefore, the purpose
of this section is not to prove that one study approach is better than another.
However, the research disproves the notion that the two questions are irreconcilable,
resulting in a binary outcome. The document's remaining sections are organized as
follows: The next section reviews the literature and places the distinctions between
qualitative and quantitative research within ontological, epistemological, and
methodological frameworks. The last section wraps up and summarizes the review.
2

2. WHICH RESEARCH METHOD SHOULD I CHOOSE?

Page
Choose research methods that will allow you to provide the best answers to
important questions while considering potential biases and acknowledging
unknowns. Usually, a combination of methods must be used for this. Qualitative
research may provide new insights into a poorly understood problem, and careful
statistical examination of the quantitative research data may reveal actual and
important patterns in the findings. There are many ways to understand the complex
world we live in.

3. DEFFERENCES BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

RESEARCH PARADIGM
Complying with the other components of the quantitative research paradigm listed in
Table 1, pure quantitative research is predicated on gathering quantitative, or
numerical, data. Qualitative data collection—that is, non-numerical data like words
and images—is required for pure qualitative research. First, because the quantitative
research technique is focused on theory and hypothesis testing, it adheres to the
confirmatory scientific method. Quantitative researchers believe that it is crucial to
put one's ideas out there and then evaluate them with real data to determine if they
hold up. Exploratory scientific methodology is typically utilized in qualitative research.
Qualitative research is employed to describe local observations and, on occasion, to
produce new theories and hypotheses. When there is little information available
about a subject or phenomenon and more information is desired, qualitative research
is employed. It is frequently employed to convey viewpoints and comprehend
people's experiences. Advocates of mixed research argue that doing studies with
both exploratory and confirmatory methodologies is essential (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Most researchers use both deductive and inductive reasoning when doing their
research. When people search for patterns in their data, extrapolate (from samples
to populations), and choose which answer is they are using inductive reasoning. The
confirmation bias is Qualitative research is employed to describe local findings and
to develop new theories and hypotheses. When more information is required
regarding a subject or phenomenon but not enough is currently known, qualitative
3

research is used. It is frequently used to share viewpoints and comprehend people's

Page

experiences. Mixed research proponents contend that it is necessary to conduct

studies using both exploratory and confirmatory approaches (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). inductive since empirical research cannot yield conclusive
proof. Scientists use deductive reasoning when they draw conclusions from their
ideas about what should happen if new empirical data supports their hypotheses
When researchers determine that a hypothesis is untrue, they apply deductive
reasoning. If they come to this conclusion, they will go on to develop and assess
original theories and concepts.

Divergent perspectives on human behaviour serve as a distinguishing factor

between qualitative and quantitative research. It is a presumption in quantitative
research that cognition and behaviour are quite predictable and understandable.
Historically, quantitative research has been predicated on the determinism
assumption, which holds that every event is entirely determined by one or more
causes (Salmon, 2007).
Since human behaviour is not governed by any set of unchanging or absolute
principles, most contemporary quantitative researchers hunt for probabilistic
explanations (Humphreys, 1989). An illustration of a probabilistic statement is this
one: "Adolescents who use alcohol and drugs are more likely to drop out of high
school than those who do not use alcohol and drugs. The key idea is that most
quantitative researchers hunt for cause-and-effect relationships to develop
probabilistic predictions and generalizations.

Comparatively, qualitative researchers are typically reluctant to generalize beyond

the specific issues they are studying because they see human behaviour as fluid,
dynamic, and changing over time and space . Many groups construct their own
realities or points of view, claims the notion of qualitative research. The way those
groups "see" or understand their surroundings, what is normal and abnormal, and
how they should behave are all influenced by these social constructions. One or a
small number of causal elements are the focus of the "narrow-angle lens" that
quantitative research commonly uses. The objective of quantitative research is to
account for the variables that are not being addressed. This is often done in a
laboratory setting where participants are randomly assigned to groups, one
4

component is altered, and the outcomes are examined. Qualitative research adopts
Page
both a broad and deep perspective to examine human behaviour and decision-
making in all its complexity.

4. REVIEW OF THE WORKS

Every study contains underlying philosophical assumptions about what constitutes a
"legitimate" study and which research method, or procedures are most appropriate
for achieving the study's objective of increasing knowledge. The research approach
to be employed is determined by the paradigm that guides the study undertaking.
The Greek word paradigm, which meaning pattern, is where the word paradigm
originates. Kuhn (1962) initially used it to allude to a shared conceptual framework
among scientists that provided them with a helpful model for analysing problems and
formulating solutions.

According to him, the term "paradigm" refers to an academic research culture made
up of common beliefs, presumptions, and concepts regarding the nature and
techniques of research (Kuhn, 1977). Thus, according to Olsen, Lodwick, and
Dunlop (1992), a paradigm is a group of theoretical and scientific notions, claims,
and beliefs that follow a pattern, structure, framework, or system in short, it is a way
of thinking about and conducting research. According to Terre Blanche and
Durkheim, the three primary parts of the research process are methodology,
ontology, and epistemology (1999. A research paradigm, by definition, is a
comprehensive framework of interconnected ideas and techniques that characterize
the nature of inquiry in these three dimensions. The ideas of ontology, epistemology,
and procedure are inextricably linked to a research paradigm, claim Guba and
Lincoln (1998).

They suggested that the concepts of methodology, ontology (i.e., the way the
researcher defines truth and reality), and epistemology (i.e., the process by which
the researcher learns the truth and reality) (i.e., the method used in conducting the
investigation) should form the basis of any research endeavour. These scholars
claim that the answers to the questions about these three components offer
interpretive data. Willis (1995) characterizes interpretivists as anti-foundationalists
5

since they believe that there is more than one correct way to learn. According to
Page

Walsham (1993), there are no "right" or "incorrect" hypotheses un the interpretive

tradition. Rather, they ought to be assessed based on how "interesting" they are to
the researcher and other people working in related fields. They look closely at the
phenomenon of interest to draw their constructs from the field. According to Gephart
(1999), interpretivists hold that meaning and knowledge are acts of interpretation; as
a result, they deny the existence of objective knowledge that is distinct from human
thinking and reasoning. According to Myers (2009), interpretive academics'
underlying presumption is that social constructs like language, awareness, and
shared meanings are the only channels by which one can access reality, whether it
be socially produced or given. To provide meaning to the facts regarding events, the
observation and interpretation procedures that underpin the interpretative paradigm
involve making deductions from the data or figuring out whether the evidence fits
with an abstract pattern (Aikenhead, 1997). It attempts to make sense of events by
applying the interpretations that people assign to them (Deetz, 1996). The
'interpretivist' paradigm stresses the importance of contextualizing analysis (Reeves
and Hedberg, 2003, p. 32).

5. EXCELLENT RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY FOR QUANTITATIVE

RESEARCH
In qualitative research, exploratory studies predominate. The goal is to obtain
additional understanding of a vague problem. Engaging human participants in
qualitative research may improve our understanding of underlying attitudes,
viewpoints, motivations, experiences, etc. The data generated by qualitative
research may lead to the development of new hypotheses for quantitative research
to assess. Research with a quantitative approach typically gives numerical results,
have a bigger sample size, and are less exploratory and more focused. The infancy
and teenage growth stages of the chimpanzees were clarified by Dr. Goodall's
qualitative research. By measuring, for example, how much time each chimpanzee
spends alone, with peers, or with their mothers daily in their early years compared to
their adolescent years, quantitative studies may be able to provide a more realistic
picture of these periods. Quantitative data may be gathered in human research using
a questionnaire with a limited number of response alternatives (e.g., How likely are
you to tell at least one parent if you are being bullied?). D) Unlikely, and extremely
6

unlikely.
Page
 6. CONCLUSION
Based on the interpretivist paradigm, qualitative research procedures are the two
main and most widely used types. And quantitative, which is based on the positivist
paradigm. The focus of quantitative technique is on attempts to quantify social
phenomena, collect and analyse numerical data, and focus on the relationships
between fewer features over multiple cases. Comparatively, the primary focus of
qualitative methodology—which is concerned with deciphering the meaning of social
phenomena—is correlations between a larger number of variables in a smaller
number of samples Connecting research to philosophical traditions or schools of
thought aids in the clarification of a researcher's theoretical frameworks in any kind
of study (Cohen, et al. 2000).Every research effort has a framework made up of
epistemological theories, ontological views about the nature of reality and
humankind, and knowledge-gathering techniques (methodology).

The kinds of research procedures used in social science research have changed
because of these beliefs. Some authors highlight the contradiction between
quantitative and qualitative approaches. Guba & Lincoln (1989) contended that any
reconciliation would weaken the philosophical underpinnings of both theories
because of how dissimilar their underlying meta-theoretical assumptions are. Each
method's ontological and epistemological underpinnings are too different to blend.
Guba (1987) asserts that one paradigm is superior to the other, much as accepting a
flat Earth automatically rules out accepting a round one. On the other hand, some
argue that one can follow the philosophy of one approach while implementing its
methodology (Reichardt and Cook, 1979; Sale et al., 2002; Walle, 1997; Walsh,
2003). Sales and Partners (2002).
7
Page
 7. REFERENCES
Allwyn and Bacon, London released "Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods" in 1992. Bogdan, R., and Biklen, S.K.

Bryman, A. "The Argument Among Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods"

(1984). The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75-92, A Methodological or
Epistemological Question.

Alan Bryman (2001). "Social Research Methods." Oxford: Oxford University Press.
"Research Methods in Education" was published in 2000 by Cohen, Manion, and
Morrison (5th ed.). London: Falmer, Routledge.

"Creswell, J.W. (2003) "Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and hybrid

methodology methodologies" (2nd ed.). Sage, California.

M. Crotty wrote "The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in

the Research Process" in 1998. Allen and Unwin Australia.

Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S., "Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research," two thousand. In the Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.
1-29). Thousand Oaks Sage.
8
Page